Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 17th, 2023 at 6:59 AM
Title: Re: Is the nature of the mind cognizant of itself?
Content:
krodha wrote:
There is a self conventionally, which is all that is being referenced.
Yes, in deluded relative truth, but not in the nature of mind - and that is the question that the OP was asking:
Is the nature of the mind cognizant of itself?
The comment regarding "rang rig" being shorthand for so so rang go rig pa'i ye shes, "a gnosis that is personally known for oneself," being an accurate conventional term, is just to point out that the term can apply to a conventional self (because conventional selves are just useful nominal inferences). Using the convention does not mean you are reifying a self, is my point.


Jules 09 said:
These statements are being asserted in a different context, they do not undermine the necessity or advantage that accompanies an intellectual understanding of the teachings. Using these quotes in an attempt to discredit "intellectual" views is a nihilist attitude. Context is king.
No, it is precisely this context in which Tsele Natsok Rangdrol uses these statements in his text The Heart of the Matter, published in the book Heart Lamp (pages 101-102.)

Here is the preceding paragraph:
The heart of the matter to be explained here,
Uniformly taught by most learned siddhas of the
New and Old Schools,
Is that the difference between Mantra and the
Philosophical Vehicle
Lies not in the view but in practicing
The vital points of skillful means.

There are some who claim a huge difference,
But, this old simpleton has found that
The essential point, the crucial meaning,
Is that - although the nature of the view is the
same -
Any difference merely lies in forming or not
forming a conceptual attitude,
Or in having or not having personal opinion and
fixation.

Although no defining characteristics exist in
themselves,
The attempts to establish intellectually,
By scrutiny and conceptualizing,
The various claims that something is empty or
not empty,
And with or without limitations,
Is never taught to be the view of Mahamudra
and Dzogchen,
And to believe "It is free from limits!" or "It is
emptiness!"
Is nothing other that straying from the view.

Rather than holding a view of mind-made
assumptions,
Realize your indescribable and unformed innate nature,
Through nakedly recognizing self-knowing 
wakefulness,
As the basic state of what is.

krodha wrote:
He is just pointing out the difference in method between the practice of common Mahayana and Vajrayana. The latter is based on abhiseka, not on intellectual analysis. Then for atiyoga, the method is based on a pratyaksa, not intellectual analysis.

Again, pointing out these crucial differences is not to undermine the value of an intellectual understanding altogether. Hence "context is king."


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 17th, 2023 at 2:13 AM
Title: Re: Is the nature of the mind cognizant of itself?
Content:


Jules 09 said:
Pssst, there is no "self".

krodha wrote:
There is a self conventionally, which is all that is being referenced. "Rang rig" in an ati context simply means a personally intuited gnosis that manifests through your own recognition.

Jules 09 said:
Yes, there are certain intellectual views that have been expressed many times on this forum.
So what?

krodha wrote:
Those "intellectual views" are informed by the tantras and commentaries of the great atiyoga luminaries. They are not some sort of fabricated intellectual views if that is what you are implying.

Jules 09 said:
As Tilopa said:
Kye ho! This self-knowing wakefulness
Lies beyond words and the reach of thought.
Likewise Maitripa:
All phenomena are empty of their own identities.
The conceptual attitude which holds them to be
empty dissolves into itself.
To be concept-free and hold nothing in mind,
Is the path of all Buddhas.
And the Buddha in the Noble Eight Thousand Verses ( Prajnaparamita ):
Subhuti, that being so, 
this transcendent knowledge fully remains as inconceivable action and thus is not the domain of common thought.
Why is this?
It is because it does not involve the attributes of (dualistic) mind and mental events.
"Empty" means the complete absence of mental constructs.


krodha wrote:
These statements are being asserted in a different context, they do not undermine the necessity or advantage that accompanies an intellectual understanding of the teachings. Using these quotes in an attempt to discredit "intellectual" views is a nihilist attitude. Context is king.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 15th, 2023 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: Is the nature of the mind cognizant of itself?
Content:
Vajrasambhava said:
I'm trying to understand how cognizance has always been present as an inherent part of emptiness.
If I'm not wrong, the mind essence Is empty and cognizant, these two things are inseparable.
How comes that emptiness has this quality?

krodha wrote:
It is probably more effective to approach this in understanding that the mind is innately cognizant, and the mind is also empty. Rather than trying to say emptiness is cognizant. Inseparable emptiness and clarity are how the dharmata of mind is defined.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, August 5th, 2023 at 3:13 AM
Title: Re: Buddha Nature is a way to attract people
Content:
krodha wrote:
Perhaps emptiness is understood as “interdependence” in a pop culture rendition of the principle, however in reality Nāgārjuna is clear that if you interpret emptiness as interdependence (parabhāva) then you are holding a view that is a guise for inherent existence (svabhāva).

PadmaVonSamba said:
I think from Nagarjuna’s perspective, he’s probably warning against falling into the trap of thinking that any “thing” is established through dependent origination.

Sunyata or emptiness can be described  as dependent origination. it’s a useful reference as far as helping to really understand the concept,  but they aren’t exactly the same thing.

Dependent origination means that all appearances (apparent phenomena) arise dependently and conditionally, and don’t exist on their own.
Sunyata means that even though appearances arise, even dependently, there’s still no “thing” that’s been established.

For example, an ocean wave hitting the beach arises due to dependent origination, due to causes and conditions. At the same time, there’s no fixed moment when any unchanging entity truly exists that’s an ocean wave. The pending conditions didn’t somehow produce something permanent and unchanging.

krodha wrote:
For Nāgārjuna, dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) and interdependence or dependent existence (parabhāva) are two different things. Conflating them is problematic.

The consequence of pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination) is anutpāda (nonarising). The consequence of parabhāva (interdependence) is svabhāva (inherent existence).


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 4th, 2023 at 8:42 AM
Title: Re: Buddha Nature is a way to attract people
Content:
Vajrasvapna said:
From the foundation of Greek culture, there is no concept of emptiness as something positive. In fact, Greek philosophy denied the negation of being.
India, like the Mayas, developed the mathematical concept of zero. Buddhism is the religious product of this. In both Madhyamaka and Yogacara, emptiness implies a sense of dependence, as dependent origination is the basis for explaining emptiness.

In both the Yogacara and Madhyamaka doctrines, emptiness implies a sense of interdependence as well, so it shouldn't evoke a feeling of abyss. However, the ideas of emptiness from others are simpler and less repulsive to be understood by people.

krodha wrote:
Perhaps emptiness is understood as “interdependence” in a pop culture rendition of the principle, however in reality Nāgārjuna is clear that if you interpret emptiness as interdependence (parabhāva) then you are holding a view that is a guise for inherent existence (svabhāva).


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 12th, 2023 at 6:22 AM
Title: Re: Buddha Nature, Dölpopa's Shentong and Parmenides's Thesis
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
A Shentong view is useful at the time of practicing vajrayana sadhana. In fact, I can’t see how one could hold an exclusive rangtong view at the time of vajrayana practice.

krodha wrote:
You might have a very liberal idea of that “shentong” is.

As for myself, I don’t see it as necessary, useful or even interesting in the least. I also find that most people who cleave to a shentong view don’t really understand the trödral view they oppose so strongly.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, July 11th, 2023 at 10:57 AM
Title: Re: Dorje Drolo and Dzogchen
Content:
Fa Dao said:
How/why/and in what way is Dorje Drolo connected to Dzogchen? I have heard a few Masters mention this but didn't go into any real detail

krodha wrote:
Drollo is a particularly wrathful emanation of Padmasambhava.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, July 3rd, 2023 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: Buddha Nature, Dölpopa's Shentong and Parmenides's Thesis
Content:
Vajrasvapna said:
Dölpopa View:
The essential feature of a Shentong interpretation of tathāgatagarbha doctrine is that the Buddha is figuratively within all beings as their unchanging, permanent, non-conditioned nature... Buddha is by all [tathāgatagarbha-sutra] accounts considered to be non-conditioned, eternal, unchanging, bliss, compassion, wisdom, power, and so on. For Shentongpas [i.e. the adherents of a Shentong understanding of scripture] the fact that Buddha is non-conditioned means the essence of Buddha is complete with all the Buddha Qualities in a timeless sense'.

krodha wrote:
The only difference between this view and non-shentong tathāgatagarbha views is the assertion that these qualities are fully formed.

As was said elsewhere on this forum, shentongpas have a weird neurotic obsession with these Buddha qualities and then make up a variety of baseless polemics to argue for their “fully formed” condition.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 1st, 2023 at 2:29 AM
Title: Re: Breathing through nose vs. Through mouth in Dzogchen (continued)
Content:
krodha wrote:
I've always practiced breathing gently through the nose.. And was also taught this is appropriate due to the correlation with stimulating the central channel, but I recently came upon this teaching titled "Key Points In Dzogchen Practice" written by "A Carefree Vagrant" the opening lines include this...

"...look with wide open eyes and without support into the sky straight before you, since the eyes are the gates for the manifestation of wisdom. As for the key point of speech, let your breathing flow naturally, not through your nose but very gently through your mouth. There is a reason for each of these points, so do not disregard them or think them unimportant."

Sounds like an important thing to take note of.. Anyone know what the significance of breathing through the mouth is? (as opposed to nasal inhalation?)

Note to moderators: I would have posted this in the meditation section but seemed more appropriate here given that the insight is based on what is correct in the context of dzogchen specifically.

Vajrasvapna said:
If you breathe through your mouth in general, it can have a significant negative impact on your health. The book "Oxygen Advantage" explains this. During practice, it can lead to a different mental state, although the biological effect of breathing through the mouth is to reduce oxygen in the brain.

krodha wrote:
You made a new thread to address a question I asked over a decade ago.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 27th, 2023 at 3:11 PM
Title: Re: Dissociation and Awareness
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
then it’s going to be pretty hard to connect it with biophotons.
When the teachings say that the nature of the mind is luminosity, it means that awareness is like a lamp in the sense that when you light a lamp in a dark room, it’s now illuminated and you can see what is there. Likewise, awareness is luminous because it is that which allows us to detect and experience things.
It doesn’t really have anything to do with beings supposedly radiating light.

krodha wrote:
Luminosity is just a synonym for “purity.”

natusake said:
On what grounds? In the sense that luminosity is not distinct from the emptiness of the mind?

krodha wrote:
See this thread:

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=19600


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 27th, 2023 at 10:30 AM
Title: Re: Dissociation and Awareness
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
What is your understanding of the meaning of the term “luminosity” in the Buddhist context?

Vajrasvapna said:
It's something I can't express with words.

PadmaVonSamba said:
then it’s going to be pretty hard to connect it with biophotons.
When the teachings say that the nature of the mind is luminosity, it means that awareness is like a lamp in the sense that when you light a lamp in a dark room, it’s now illuminated and you can see what is there. Likewise, awareness is luminous because it is that which allows us to detect and experience things.
It doesn’t really have anything to do with beings supposedly radiating light.

krodha wrote:
Luminosity is just a synonym for “purity.”


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 27th, 2023 at 10:26 AM
Title: Re: Dissociation and Awareness
Content:
Vajrasvapna said:
I see the concept of biophotons as an explanation for the phenomenon of luminosity.

PadmaVonSamba said:
What is your understanding of the meaning of the term “luminosity” in the Buddhist context?

Vajrasvapna said:
It's something I can't express with words.
Do not get stuck in any idea, leave aside all concepts:
remain in the bliss of self-arising wisdom. Precisely this is
the state of self-arising clear light, the capacity for spiritual
action of the state of the supreme source.
The Kunjed Gyalpo

krodha wrote:
Alright well luminosity has nothing to do with biophotons.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 27th, 2023 at 6:05 AM
Title: Re: Dissociation and Awareness
Content:
krodha wrote:
Disassociation is a more extreme form of delusion than our already deluded normal condition. The idea that a disassociative state resembles vidyā or jñāna is pretty absurd in my opinion.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 26th, 2023 at 10:25 AM
Title: Re: Western Philosophy and emptiness
Content:



Passing By said:
Isn't discriminating awareness one of the five pristine consciousnesses though?

krodha wrote:
Discriminating wisdom or gnosis knows that entities are distinct conventionally, but not ultimately. Conventional entities are only nominal in nature from the standpoint of discriminating wisdom, so there is no contradiction.

Passing By said:
What do you mean by "rendered invalid" ?

krodha wrote:
Perception, saṃjñā, defined as the cognition of discrete entities (because it is a cognition that apprehends the characteristics of an object), seems very valid to us normal sentient beings who dwell in our karmic vision, but āryas in equipoise do not perceive substantial entities because they are recognized to be nonarisen. Nonarising means a nonconceptual recognition that entities never arose in the first place, and this means "perception" is not occurring, it is rendered invalid in awakened equipoise which is the domain of "nonperception." Nonperception does not mean appearances vanish, like some sort of inert void or formless absorption, it just means the practitioner has realized that entities are nonarisen, and that entities were never actually there from the very beginning. Appearances still manifest, but like images in a dream, you know the dream tiger is not a real tiger, for example.


Passing By said:
Wouldn't it be closer to phenomenology instead of epistemology since the framework/method of the Four Lamps/Four Chogshags in Dzogchen relies on direct perception in one's own personal experience rather than intellectual analysis? Same goes also for Two Stages sadhana in the other inner tantras

krodha wrote:
We can say epistemology through the lens of phenomenology, but epistemology is paramount because knowledge (vidyā) is the liberating factor here, not some sort of absorption into an ontological principle like a puruṣa in Vendanta and so on.

Further, the most potent form of knowledge (vidyā) is specifically a knowledge of again, noarising, which undermines ontological status. You are right though that we are seeking to understand consciousness, mind, etc., which is what phenomenology is concerned with.

The major disparity I was pointing out was between epistemic and ontological soteriology. We can agree that all of these systems, Vedanta, Shaivism, Buddhism, etc., are all concerned with phenomenology, understanding consciousness/mind. Those other systems may even claim that they approach an understanding of their ultimate natures through knowledge (epistemology) but, there is always a subtle ontology at play for them, whereas in the buddhadharma, the type of knowledge we champion actually liberates us from that limitation, and it is therefore unique and unshared.

Passing By said:
I see, so you meant correct perception vs flawed perception in which case, yes I see how it can be called an epistemological approach.

krodha wrote:
Especially because knowledge is the gateway to correct perception and a lack of knowledge is the cause of flawed perception. Everything hinges on knowledge.

Passing By said:
I thought you were invalidating discriminating perception entirely as in "Buddhas literally do not perceive individual objects at all" in the sense that to their eyes, they do not see different forms of different objects and similar for their other senses

krodha wrote:
Not like that necessarily, no... but depending on how extreme you want to get we do have luminaries like Rongzom asserting that Buddhas literally do not perceive individual objects at all. Which is technically true, but must be understood the right way. There are still appearances for Buddhas, but no objects. Perhaps “the form of an object” as you put it, if you define that as the collection of appearances that were previously misconstrued to be an object. Recall that from a Buddha’s point of view they do not have eyes and so on, per the Heart sūtra, for example.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 26th, 2023 at 6:50 AM
Title: Re: Western Philosophy and emptiness
Content:
Passing By said:
What do you mean by "rendered invalid" ?

krodha wrote:
Perception, saṃjñā, defined as the cognition of discrete entities (because it is a cognition that apprehends the characteristics of an object), seems very valid to us normal sentient beings who dwell in our karmic vision, but āryas in equipoise do not perceive substantial entities because they are recognized to be nonarisen. Nonarising means a nonconceptual recognition that entities never arose in the first place, and this means "perception" is not occurring, it is rendered invalid in awakened equipoise which is the domain of "nonperception." Nonperception does not mean appearances vanish, like some sort of inert void or formless absorption, it just means the practitioner has realized that entities are nonarisen, and that entities were never actually there from the very beginning. Appearances still manifest, but like images in a dream, you know the dream tiger is not a real tiger, for example.

natusake said:
Is this what is meant by liberation through signlessness? i.e., nothing directly perceived is imputed as a sign (nimitta) of an entity? Then, signless absorption is not classed as a formless absorption?

krodha wrote:
Yes, this is what signlessness or an “absence of characteristics” is referring to. It directiy pertains to the nonarising of phenomena (dharmas). The definition of “dharma” in this context is “that which bears characteristics,” and so when nonarising is realized, it is seen that there are no entities which bear characteristics, and if there is no entity that alleged characteristics belong to, there are no characteristics.

This is a key insight, so much so that Nāgārjuna states in his Lokātītastava:
You [the tathāgata] taught that those who do not realize that characteristics do not exist are not liberated.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 26th, 2023 at 6:28 AM
Title: Re: Lama Lena feat. Garchen Rinpoche: Dorje Phurba
Content:



dharmafootsteps said:
To answer the question, LL seems to have her students attend GR online empowerments in order to receive things she can't give herself. I've no idea if this is just piggybacking off existing GR teachings, or if it's an arranged collaboration though. Perhaps a LL student could give more info.

heart said:
Right, she can give Dzogchen but not Vajrakilaya?

Tata1 said:
I know she did vajrakilaya retreat with wangdor rinpoche. But it seems she doesnt usually give tantric wangs

krodha wrote:
I heard she does not give them at all.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 26th, 2023 at 6:02 AM
Title: Re: Western Philosophy and emptiness
Content:



krodha wrote:
This is why “perception,” the ascertaining of discrete objects, is rendered invalid.

The Āryātajñāna-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:
Since all phenomena are naturally luminous,  one should fully cultivate the perception of nonperception.

Passing By said:
Isn't discriminating awareness one of the five pristine consciousnesses though?

krodha wrote:
Discriminating wisdom or gnosis knows that entities are distinct conventionally, but not ultimately. Conventional entities are only nominal in nature from the standpoint of discriminating wisdom, so there is no contradiction.

Passing By said:
What do you mean by "rendered invalid" ?

krodha wrote:
Perception, saṃjñā, defined as the cognition of discrete entities (because it is a cognition that apprehends the characteristics of an object), seems very valid to us normal sentient beings who dwell in our karmic vision, but āryas in equipoise do not perceive substantial entities because they are recognized to be nonarisen. Nonarising means a nonconceptual recognition that entities never arose in the first place, and this means "perception" is not occurring, it is rendered invalid in awakened equipoise which is the domain of "nonperception." Nonperception does not mean appearances vanish, like some sort of inert void or formless absorption, it just means the practitioner has realized that entities are nonarisen, and that entities were never actually there from the very beginning. Appearances still manifest, but like images in a dream, you know the dream tiger is not a real tiger, for example.

This is why the soteriological catalyst for liberation in Madhyamaka, atiyoga and so on is rooted in epistemology, rather than this stringent division between phenomenology and ontology that you are continually proposing.


Passing By said:
Wouldn't it be closer to phenomenology instead of epistemology since the framework/method of the Four Lamps/Four Chogshags in Dzogchen relies on direct perception in one's own personal experience rather than intellectual analysis? Same goes also for Two Stages sadhana in the other inner tantras

krodha wrote:
We can say epistemology through the lens of phenomenology, but epistemology is paramount because knowledge (vidyā) is the liberating factor here, not some sort of absorption into an ontological principle like a puruṣa in Vendanta and so on.

Further, the most potent form of knowledge (vidyā) is specifically a knowledge of again, noarising, which undermines ontological status. You are right though that we are seeking to understand consciousness, mind, etc., which is what phenomenology is concerned with.

The major disparity I was pointing out was between epistemic and ontological soteriology. We can agree that all of these systems, Vedanta, Shaivism, Buddhism, etc., are all concerned with phenomenology, understanding consciousness/mind. Those other systems may even claim that they approach an understanding of their ultimate natures through knowledge (epistemology) but, there is always a subtle ontology at play for them, whereas in the buddhadharma, the type of knowledge we champion actually liberates us from that limitation, and it is therefore unique and unshared.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 24th, 2023 at 9:22 AM
Title: Re: Psychology: You have to be somebody before you can be nobody (?)
Content:


OB1 said:
I cannot imagine what a " nonperception " would be. It sounds like some extreme meditative absorption.

Kai lord said:
Not necessary, one can experience that during deep sleep, deep coma, height of orgasm, etc.

OB1 said:
Well then, deep sleep, orgasm, etc are "direct perceptions of emptiness". Is that Malcolm means?  I really don't know.

krodha wrote:
Nonperception just means you are not perceiving entities while in awakened equipoise.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, June 22nd, 2023 at 5:37 AM
Title: Re: Longchen Nyingtig opportunity
Content:
heart said:
I think you should do the whole 10 days.

yagmort said:
frankly, i am not sure if i should attend. you know my situation. you think i should?

LN is huge and full of sadhanas which i don't have intent to do. also, i would rather receive empowerment from a teacher i trust and who will be guiding me, and you know my choice. what's your thoughts?

krodha wrote:
There is immense value in creating the tendrel with the teacher, lineage, cycle, etc., so that you may re-encounter them in another life if you do not practice that particular cycle in this life.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 7th, 2023 at 8:08 AM
Title: Re: No guru, no dzogchen?
Content:



Tata1 said:
I really dont understand what you dont understand.
Its quite easy, you go to a teacher, he gives pointing out instructions, you dont know wtf happened, you apply the methods given to you by the teacher, you eventually start to get glimpses, this glimpses become more often, you go beyond doubt...etc

krodha wrote:
Same thing Dudjom Rinpoche said:
A Dzogchen Master starts with "direct introduction" with everyone. If they don't "get it" then one starts to use all the infinite methods and means to help bring about the experience of Rigpa. When one has the experience of Rigpa, then one confirms the validity of one's path now being "remaining with Rigpa" as path. Then, one simply continues in that state.

heart said:
I doubt that is a quote.

krodha wrote:
It is from his text on the three statements of Garab Dorje.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 7th, 2023 at 5:22 AM
Title: Re: No guru, no dzogchen?
Content:



Tata1 said:
No. In saying 99% of the people in any sangha who receive pointing out instructions dont get confindence in the view soy they have to apply methods to re introduce themselves again and again until they gain certainty (which is the first point).

Pretty basic standard dzogchen practice procedure

Jules 09 said:
So, now you appear to be saying that 99% of people in any sangha do actually recognize rigpa the very first time they receive pointing out instructions, but they don't gain confidence in that recognition. ?

However, ject did not say that, at all.

ject wrote:
In the last event? I cant recall receiving any instructions to have a direct experience or being introduced to my nature.
I have never participated in any of his events before so maybe it was there but I completely missed it.
Or maybe I did not understand the translator etc.
It is also possible that I am confused about the terminology. 
I am also completely oblivious to my "real condition and potentiality".

Tata1 said:
I really dont understand what you dont understand.
Its quite easy, you go to a teacher, he gives pointing out instructions, you dont know wtf happened, you apply the methods given to you by the teacher, you eventually start to get glimpses, this glimpses become more often, you go beyond doubt...etc

krodha wrote:
Same thing Dudjom Rinpoche said:
A Dzogchen Master starts with "direct introduction" with everyone. If they don't "get it" then one starts to use all the infinite methods and means to help bring about the experience of Rigpa. When one has the experience of Rigpa, then one confirms the validity of one's path now being "remaining with Rigpa" as path. Then, one simply continues in that state.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 31st, 2023 at 1:56 AM
Title: Re: Western Philosophy and emptiness
Content:
krodha wrote:
Don’t forget the rare ambidextrous yogis.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 30th, 2023 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: Western Philosophy and emptiness
Content:
Malcolm said:
If you think that she is implying that Candra is hinting at an ineffable experience, I disagree with her. If you think she is implying that gnosis is ineffable, I agree with her.

The problem here is the lack of definition of “experience.”

stong gzugs said:
Very helpful clarification, thanks. I think PadmaVonSamba below raises some good points, which I build upon.

PadmaVonSamba said:
How do you know they have no characteristics I’d they aren’t experienced?

stong gzugs said:
This is a great point, PadmaVonSamba! Here are some questions that might clarify what's at stake here:

If jñana is defined in terms of a consciousness that doesn't arise because its support-object has no signs, per Cāndrakīrti, that's basically what happens in dreamless deep sleep. In deep sleep, there are no signs (unlike in waking life or during dreams) to serve as object-supports and no consciousness arises. But we are typically also unaware: there is no experience of deep sleep, which is why we only infer that we were in deep sleep after we wake up from it. In contrast, when we practice night yogas, we can maintain awareness even as we drift from waking life into the dream-world and the dream-world dissolves into deep sleep, such that deep sleep can be experienced. There still is no positive sign to serve as a support-object for consciousness, but one still remains aware and experiencing. So, which of these are more analogous to jñana as you and Cāndrakīrti define it?

Further, how does resting in the non-arising of consciousness cultivate positive qualities to benefit others? If the non-arising of consciousness, without being aware of it, was helpful in this way, couldn't you put people under a medically-induced coma and they'd come out as better people? If not, then doesn't this imply that one must maintain awareness and experience the non-arising of consciousness to produce benefits? Such that awareness and experience can persist in the absence of (dualistic) consciousness?

krodha wrote:
Jñāna is the luminosity of the mind, fully active and engaged, not an unconscious state.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 30th, 2023 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: Western Philosophy and emptiness
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
How do you know they have no characteristics I’d they aren’t experienced?

It’s like in the Surangama sutra: if you cover your eyes so that you can’t see, then how do you know you can’t see, if you can’t see?

You know through eye consciousness.

krodha wrote:
An absence of characteristics is a synonym for the realization of emptiness. If there is no core svabhāva or entity which objects are comprised of, then there is no entity to possess characteristics, and thus there are no characteristics.

Important insight, as Nāgārjuna states in his Lokātītastava:
You [the tathāgata] taught that those who do not realize that characteristics do not exist are not liberated.
This is why “perception,” the ascertaining of discrete objects, is rendered invalid.

The Āryātajñāna-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:
Since all phenomena are naturally luminous,  one should fully cultivate the perception of nonperception.

PadmaVonSamba said:
It’s the same with directly experiencing that which has nothing to experience. To rely on has/hasn’t is still to dwell duality. At the level of consciousness being discussed here, that duality would have long been transcended.

krodha wrote:
Again, because entities are realized to be non-arisen, the basis of imputation which was previously mistaken to be an object endowed with specific characteristics is recognized to not actually constitute or create the entity it was previously misconstrued to characterize (through the lens of delusion). In the absence of an entity, existence and non-existence, having no substantial referent, are undone and as a result all views (and characteristics) are exhausted.

In his Mūlamadhyamakakārika, Nāgārjuna clarifies that the pacification of views and characteristics is contingent upon insight into emptiness whereby existent entities that are capable of existing and/or lacking existence are recognized to be unfounded. He likewise chastises those of “little intelligence” who assert otherwise:
Some of small intelligence, see existents in terms of “is” or “is not”; they do not perceive the pacification of views, or peace.
“Peace” here again is intended to illustrate an absence of characteristics, so again we come full circle with the importance of an absence of characteristics. The Ārya-tathāgatācintyaguhyanirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:
"Nirvana is peace" denotes actualizing the absence of characteristics.
Candrakīrti concurs in his Madhyamakāvatāra:
The absence of all characteristics is peace.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 29th, 2023 at 5:22 AM
Title: Re: Western Philosophy and emptiness
Content:
krodha wrote:
Madhyamaka, atiyoga and so on are stating that via accurate epistemic insight, ontologies are undermined and this releases the phenomenological, conscious aspect of our experience from the confines of all dualisms. Even beyond the limited species of nonduality you are advocating for which is an awareness devoid of subject and object.

stong gzugs said:
Yes, this point was already discussed a few pages back. Per KTGR and others, the gzhanstong claim is that the analytical meditations that prasangikas do to purportedly attain "accurate epistemic insight" basically leave behind a subtle form of conceptualization and habit for negation that gets in the way of actual nisprapañca.

krodha wrote:
Of course they do, they have to try and legitimize their advocacy of gzhan stong with some sort of polemical claim. Now, whether there is merit to said claim will be something gzhan stong pas will obviously confirm and non-gzhan stong pas will deny.

stong gzugs said:
So, rather than freeing up phenomenological experience, they constrain it.

krodha wrote:
Clearly it is the claimants of the inferior substantial nonduality you are championing who constrain it.

But these arguments are old, we can see Ju Mipham addressing the same issue in his commentary on the Madhyamakālaṃkāra, the dbu ma rgyan gyi rnam bshad 'jam dbyangs bla ma dgyes pa'i zhal lung:
Without finding certainty in primordial purity (ka dag), just mulling over some 'ground that is neither existent nor nonexistent' will get you nowhere. If you apprehend this basis of emptiness that is empty of both existence and nonexistence as something that is established by its essence separately [from everything else], no matter how you label it (such as an inconceivable self, Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Īśvara, or wisdom) except for the mere name, the meaning is the same. Since the basic nature free from the reference points of the four extremes, that is, Dzogchen (the luminosity that is to be personally experienced) is not at all like that, it is important to rely on the correct path and teacher. Therefore, you may pronounce 'illusionlike,' 'nonentity,' 'freedom from reference points,' and the like as mere verbiage, but this is of no benefit whatsoever, if you do not know the [actual] way of being of the Tathāgata’s emptiness (which surpasses the limited [kinds of] emptiness [asserted] by the tīrthikas) through the decisive certainty that is induced by reasoning.
He continues to address the difference in Liquid Gold:
The Cittamatrins deconstruct both subject and object in a mere empty intrinsically knowing pristine consciousness (gnosis).
And like the Inlaid Jewels Tantra states:
Since intrinsic knowing [rang rig, svasaṃvedana] is devoid of actual signs of awakening, it is not at all the pristine consciousness of vidyā [rig pa'i ye shes].

stong gzugs said:
When you get away from sutra and into tantra,

krodha wrote:
Here, as seen above, we are discussing the distilled essence of tantra, which you gzhan stong pas arguably deviate from due to your preference for the mere substantially nondual svasaṃvedana (devoid of signs of awakening) you are promoting in this thread.

stong gzugs said:
i.e., into rangtong Ati vs. gzhanstong Kālacakra, this all has to do with how one relates to the visual appearances in these respective practices, which we've already agreed to bracket off from the current conversation, to not go down that whole rabbit hole again. If you use the search function, you can find the prior conversation between Malcolm and myself on that.

krodha wrote:
What it actually has to do with is your reification of that phenomenological aspect. Unbeknownst to you.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 29th, 2023 at 4:39 AM
Title: Re: The Role of Shamatha/Vipaysana in Dzogchen
Content:
krodha wrote:
Guru yoga of the white A is a method of guru yoga, but guru yoga in general is just resting in the “view” of ati.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 29th, 2023 at 4:26 AM
Title: Re: Western Philosophy and emptiness
Content:
Malcolm said:
Can you explain to me which of the eighteen dhatus this “ awareness” belongs to?

stong gzugs said:
The part about phenomenology vs. ontology and Madhyamaka making a category error is what's crucial. In the conversation between Śankara and Madhyamaka, attempting to situate awareness within one of the dhatus is trying to win the argument by terminology, because by definition the dhatus are knowable things. So this rhetorical move has to be rejected a priori. So awareness, as Duckworth is describing it using a non-partisan term, is something we can all experience, is our subjective sense of being an active witness to experience rather than being a zombie. What's the difference between subjective experience when you're waking, vs. when you're put into a coma? A sense of awareness.

That sense of awareness can be treated both as subject (as it's the one who is witnessing events) and object (as we can talk about it, albeit imperfectly, like we're doing here). Attempts to refute it as an object through arguments are themselves witnessed by it as a subject. Whether you privilege the arguments that refute it as an object (ontology) vs. the experience where you are yourself aware of that argument (phenomenology) is a matter of starting assumptions. Fact is, perhaps aside from nirodha samapatti, the phenomenology of awareness always remains, no matter what sort of Madhyamaka analytical meditation you do. You can collapse the sense of self in the skandhas, but that collapsing appears within spacious awareness. Otherwise, there would be no actual recognition of no-self-in-skandhas.

krodha wrote:
This is why the soteriological catalyst for liberation in Madhyamaka, atiyoga and so on is rooted in epistemology, rather than this stringent division between phenomenology and ontology that you are continually proposing.

The phenomenological aspect of our experience is already corrupted by the deluded perception of ontological constructs. Madhyamaka, atiyoga and so on are stating that via accurate epistemic insight, ontologies are undermined and this releases the phenomenological, conscious aspect of our experience from the confines of all dualisms. Even beyond the limited species of nonduality you are advocating for which is an awareness devoid of subject and object. That too is refuted, as we see in Atiśas writings that are echoed by prominent atiyogins such as Longchenpa et al., dharmakāya does not even admit jñāna, and so on. Jñāna ceases to operate. The purpose of that clarification is to undermine attempts at reifying that phenomenological aspect, like you are doing.

You are an advocate of a substantial and reductive nonduality, which is a deviation. True nondual insight, is insubstantial and nonreductive. This is the meaning of the emptiness of emptiness and so on. Your view errs very close to the edge of tīrthika treatments of that phenomenological aspect.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 28th, 2023 at 7:39 AM
Title: Re: The Role of Shamatha/Vipaysana in Dzogchen
Content:
krodha wrote:
Again there is vipassana meditation, like that offered by the Thai forest ajahns and bikkhus you reference, and then there is the species of “clear insight” as classically described in Mahāyāna texts...

stong gzugs said:
I don't disagree with you that vipassana practice and vipaśyanā as actual insight into reality aren't coextensive. I just said that the section of your statement which I quoted, where you describe vipassana practice as a glorified form of śamatha, is factually incorrect, which it is. The whole innovation of vipassana practice is claiming that you can gain insight into the three marks of existence without first cultivating serious śamatha. Vipassana practice is not a glorified form of śamatha, but is rather a method explicitly designed to bypass śamatha, which became particularly useful in the political context of combating Western colonialism in Burma and Thailand, among other places in SE Asia.

krodha wrote:
Vipassana meditation, no matter the type of dhyāna it is, is not yet awakened equipoise, and so it is basically akin to an analytical or active form of śamatha. Hence “glorified.” But you’re welcome to disagree, I don’t really have a horse in that race.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 28th, 2023 at 7:07 AM
Title: Re: The Role of Shamatha/Vipaysana in Dzogchen
Content:
krodha wrote:
Vipassana style meditation and the real meaning of vipaśyanā are two different things. The former is just a glorified style of śamatha meditation...

Terma said:
This is spot on, actually...

stong gzugs said:
The quoted statement above is just factually false. Vipassana style meditation was explicitly a rejection of śamatha meditation. Bhikkhu Sujato wrote an entire book about it that's worth reading called A history of mindfulness: How insight worsted tranquillity in the satipaṭṭhāna sutta. It's https://santifm.org/santipada/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/A_History_of_Mindfulness_Bhikkhu_Sujato.pdf.

krodha wrote:
Again there is vipassana meditation, like that offered by the Thai forest ajahns and bikkhus you reference, and then there is the species of “clear insight” as classically described in Mahāyāna texts, such as the Akṣayamati-nirdeśa, which defines vipaśyanā here:
The consciousness that perceives the entry into reality is called "vipaśyanā." So-called vipaśyanā is perceiving phenomena correctly, perceiving phenomena as they are, perceiving phenomena truly, and perceiving phenomena as not otherwise, perceiving phenomena as empty, without characteristics, without aspiration, perceiving phenomena to be unformed, likewise, nonarisen, unproduced, insubstantial, just as they are, pure, and as isolated. It is perceiving phenomena as unmoving, inactive, without self, wholly without grasping, inseparable, one taste, as the nature of space, and nirvana by nature.
This is describing an ārya’s equipoise, what we atiyogins would term the “state of trekchö.”


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 28th, 2023 at 6:47 AM
Title: Re: Why so gray?
Content:
Meido said:
FWIW, we have been asking the same questions in the Western Zen world. Part of the answer to "why so gray" seems not only to be the aging of the generations initially interested, as mentioned above, but also a bit of a gap in subsequent generational interest that occurred for a number of reasons.

The reaction of many dharma centers to this has been to try to create targeted programming they believed would draw younger folks (for example, programs focused on social justice issues), and to ease up on the rigor of practice forms and retreats. But this has largely backfired.

What I am seeing now is that centers stressing a more traditional, rigorous practice approach are the ones attracting the 20-somethings. Those younger practitioners I've spoken with indicate they were searching specifically for something genuine, and are hypersenstive to anything they perceive to be watered-down, compromising, or (especially) pandering to them. So, perhaps Gen Z for the win: they've got existential angst and urgency to spare, and seem not to shy away from the challenge of practice.

Not sure if any of this applies to Dzogchen places, but thought I'd share.

krodha wrote:
I know there was a group of Bönpo lamas for awhile that all decided that westerners weren’t ready for anything beyond superficial topics. This is why we saw a large collection of lha retrieval teachings and other basic topics being recycled. They concluded that the western palette just was not ready for anything more. I can only assume this did backfire, as it probably failed to interest practitioners who were/are ready for more in depth teachings.

Another example, you gave a teaching last year, or the year before about accessing samādhi through the senses – which was incredible by the way, thank you – but it seemed to be the rare exception in terms of subject matter, at least through the program that offered the webcast at the time. I’m sure you teach stuff like that all the time to your dedicated students but as a one-off webcast it certainly stood out in comparison to what else was being offered by whatever other teachers were involved with the group in question.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 27th, 2023 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: The Role of Shamatha/Vipaysana in Dzogchen
Content:
merilingpa said:
I agree in principle what Malcolm is saying but in practical terms there is very few who practice without first gathering the accumulations and doing purifications through ngöndro, yidam and different sadhanas. All the great lamas and Rinpoches have that approach. Longchen Nyingthig ngöndro is very highly praised and most people wont be doing Yeshe Lama without first doing that.

natusake said:
I have not done so at all. I did a little bit of vipassana-style meditation for about a year before encountering Dzogchen teachings and that's it. I'll let you know in a few years if I'm a failed practitioner or not.

krodha wrote:
Vipassana style meditation and the real meaning of vipaśyanā are two different things. The former is just a glorified style of śamatha meditation, the latter is actually the awakened state we aim to actualize even in atiyoga.

That being the case, this thread is really about the role of śamatha in Dzogchen, because vipaśyanā is awakened equipoise.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 27th, 2023 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: So what exactly does it mean to take refuge?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Taking refuge is the simple acknowledgement that everything in samsara is suffering and there is no refuge in samsara at all. Therefore you take refuge in the triple gem because it is the only means to be liberated from suffering.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 27th, 2023 at 2:08 PM
Title: Re: debating and attitude in the meantime
Content:
jet.urgyen said:
As many of us have discussions over the forum, is there any etiquette principles for debating dharma related matters? Insults and silence are allowed when there's no argument or when someone doesn't like how it goes?

krodha wrote:
You said some wild stuff and got flamed for it... should probably just accept it and take it on the chin. The response you got was not undeserved. Also an apology would be nice.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 27th, 2023 at 7:27 AM
Title: Re: ChNN and formal trekchö practice
Content:
Vasana said:
Is anyone able to send a pic of the contents page(s) of the new Trekchod book from ChNNR? (In a pm)
I want to see how much of it is different from the recent Longsal commentary series on Trekchod.

krodha wrote:
Can someone share a link to this new book? I only see the trekchö longsal commentary in the Shang shung store.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 27th, 2023 at 2:46 AM
Title: Re: Western Philosophy and emptiness
Content:
krodha wrote:
Gzhan stong pas really think the equipoise of gzhan stong and so-called rang stong are different? Or is this just your own fantasy, stong gzugs?


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 26th, 2023 at 11:32 PM
Title: Re: Western Philosophy and emptiness
Content:
OdeKirk said:
Does empty of other treat emptiness as nothingness?

stong gzugs said:
No! It's the exact opposite. As this is a very fundamental, basic, bedrock point, I'd really recommend turning to some texts, as such points probably aren't best understood through a forum. I have some text recommendations https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=36501&p=649978#p649978 but perhaps https://www.amazon.com/Buddha-Within-Tathagatagarbha-Interpretation-Ratnagotravibhaga/dp/0791403580 by Shenpen Hookham would be a good bet, as she was a KTGR student and you seem to have a connection with him or affinity to him.

But, as a bit of a response, if you look back through the conversation here, there are two key arguments from the Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra to grok: (1) To say a house is extrinsically empty of people isn't to say that the house is therefore intrinsically empty of itself (as it still has its own structure of walls, roof, etc.), so "emptiness" doesn't just mean one thing, it can mean something is empty of itself or empty of something other than itself. (2) If someone takes a hailstone home and it melts, and then they see a gemstone and assume it will also melt, they've made a mistake, because not everything is empty in the same way.

With these lines in mind, when you read sutras or tantras, and see the word "empty", you have to discern more precisely whether that thing is actually inherently empty (like a hailstone) or not (like a gemstone), and whether it is being described as such, or not. Buddha nature is a gemstone that doesn't melt and too many people have mistaken it for a hailstone that does. Buddha nature is empty of obscurations (like a house is empty of people), but is replete with innumerable buddha qualities (like a house is full of its own structure, like walls and a roof). Dölpopa did exactly that kind of reading in his voluminous Mountain Dharma text, and thus integrated and reconciled the sutras and tantras to reveal the definitive meaning of the Buddha.

natusake said:
Does emptiness of other consider emptiness of self as nothingness?

krodha wrote:
Pretty much. I’ve never met a gzhan stong pa online who actually understands classical śūnyatā — Nāgārjuna, Candrakīrti etc., none of them have a grasp on it. And gzhan stong warps their ability to understand further with baseless straw man views. It’s kind of sad really.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 26th, 2023 at 1:02 PM
Title: Re: Western Philosophy and emptiness
Content:
Malcolm said:
The minute you say something is not empty, you enter into limitations.

stong gzugs said:
The third turning is about precise distinctions. Here's a more precise rephrasing of your statement: the minute you fail to distinguish between types of emptiness, you enter into limitations. The Tathāgatagarbha is (other)empty of all afflictions (parabhāvaśūnyatā) but not its inherent buddha qualities, whereas afflictions are (self)empty of any inherent essence (svabhāvaśūnyatā).

krodha wrote:
Gzhan stong pas love to pretend their view is the only one where “Buddha qualities” are preserved. Absurd.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 26th, 2023 at 3:12 AM
Title: Re: ChNN and formal trekchö practice
Content:



jet.urgyen said:
i'm sorry, atiyoga is non-gradual. one becomes aware of that at the very begining of practicing it.

most ChNN's followers are pretenders, so his teachings are for them. the context of his teaching is very important.

krodha wrote:
It is non-gradual because (i) it is the same continuum of vidyā from start to finish, and (ii) we are not producing anything new, only removing impediments.

Apart from those non-gradual aspects, there is a path. The dharmatā of the minds of sentient beings and Buddhas is identical in characteristic, but the former is burdened by avidyā while the latter is not. The process of eliminating avidyā is not immediate.

Take it from ya boy Dudjom Lingpa, he was not a DC pretender as you so arrogantly assert:
Having simply identified vidyā, some people, who lack even a trace of any meditation, claim they have experienced the extinction into dharmatā and there is nothing more to spiritual awakening than this. That is an enormous mistake! The qualities of realization mature through the power of gradual practice. This is how you must reach the state of liberation.

jet.urgyen said:
It is non gradual because your guru pointed at. That's tne non-gradual I'm taking about. It doesn't need much explanation.

krodha wrote:
There are concurrent contexts here that are important to understand. Something that may gradually occur in a non-gradual context. If we only fixate on the non-gradual side of things then we run the risk of missing some valuable nuances about the ati path.

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche describes this well in the following excerpt:
A seeming confusion obscures the recognition of the basis [gzhi]. Fortunately, this seeming delusion is temporary. This failure to recognize the basis is similar to dreaming. Dreaming is not primordial; it is temporary, it can be purified. Purification happens through training on the path. We have strayed from the basis and become sentient beings. To free the basis from what obscures it, we have to train. Right now, we are on the path and have not yet attained the result. When we are freed from obscuration, then the result - dharmakāya - appears. The liberated basis, path and result are all perfected in the realm of the single essence, the continuity of rig pa [vidyā].

In fact, there is no difference whatsoever between the basis and result. In the state of the basis the enlightened qualities are not acknowledged, but they are manifest at the time of the result. These are not new qualities that suddenly appear, but are like the qualities of a flower that are inherent in the seed. Within the seed are the characteristics of the flower itself. The seed holds the potential for the flower's color, smell, bud and leaves. However, can we say that the seed is the result of the flower? No, we cannot, because the flower has not fully bloomed. Like this analogy, the qualities of the result are contained in the state of the basis; yet, they are not evident or manifest. That is the difference between the basis and the result. At the time of the path, if we do not apply effort, the result will not appear.
You are sort of choosing to focus on the part in bold, to the detriment of the rest of the points being made. The two gradual/nongradual aspects are not in contradiction. There’s no reason to single one side out at the expense of the other. They are in harmony and balance if understood properly.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 25th, 2023 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: ChNN and formal trekchö practice
Content:
jet.urgyen said:
i dare to say that trekcho ain't a practice. ain't an effort.

krodha wrote:
Effort is required at first. Starting out you have to “chase” the meditation, and then eventually it chases you, as Khenchen Palden Sherab Rinpoche and Khenpo Tsewang Dongyal Rinpoche put it. Trekchö initially takes a lot of effort and diligence.

People conflate the “effortless” mechanics of the so-called practice with the process being entirely effortless. If you don’t apply any effort at all you’ll end up doing nothing. I’m sure a lot of people do nothing and sit around and think they’re practicing trekchö somehow. Idiots.

The aspect of effort is related to the habitual inclinations to become distracted and grasp. Those habits are very strong, and so diligent and persistent effort in the “effortless” mechanics of the discipline are needed.

This is what Chögyal Namkhai Norbu was referring to when he used the analogy of learning to drive a car. Lots of effort in the beginning, but eventually it becomes second nature and it is very easy and generally effortless.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 25th, 2023 at 3:10 PM
Title: Re: The Role of Shamatha/Vipaysana in Dzogchen
Content:
madhusudan said:
Here is a new clip of BAW addressing this issue for those who want to hear it from the horse's mouth, so to speak:

TLDR: He claims that there are extremely rare genius-level practitioners who might not need to "achieve" shamatha, but for everyone else it is necessary. This, he says, is what he was taught by GR from multiple texts as well as from other Lamas, though he also mentions one without naming names who did not include shamatha in his Dzogchen.

dharmafootsteps said:
He mentions “realizing emptiness” a few times, and mentions doing so before beginning trekcho. I don’t know how he defines realizing emptiness, but as I understand it this would be a much bigger deal than the insistence on achieving śamatha. It would make Dzogchen the practice of āryas only.

krodha wrote:
The equipoise of an ārya that occurs upon realizing emptiness is the “state of trekchö,” so you’re right, his comment does not make sense.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 25th, 2023 at 12:05 PM
Title: Re: The Role of Shamatha/Vipaysana in Dzogchen
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
If this is going to continue, can we define “achieve shamatha” precisely?

Malcolm said:
It means a state of equipoise characterized by four or five  distinct mental,factors.

krodha wrote:
Does this mean the first dhyāna is “achieving śamatha?”


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 25th, 2023 at 9:03 AM
Title: Re: The Role of Shamatha/Vipaysana in Dzogchen
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
If this is going to continue, can we define “achieve shamatha” precisely?

krodha wrote:
The definition seems like a shifting landscape.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 25th, 2023 at 4:44 AM
Title: Re: Western Philosophy and emptiness
Content:
stong gzugs said:
It's also worth noting here that even these early stages aren't about the inherent emptiness of x (svabhāvaśūnyatā), but about the extrinsic emptiness of x as being empty of y (parabhāvaśūnyatā).

natusake said:
Why would the two be mutually exclusive?

stong gzugs said:
I don't know about mutually exclusive, but they're different meditative practices, and this difference has to do roughly with debates on affirming vs. non-affirming negations. The followers of Cāndrakirti primarily practice svabhāvaśūnyatā, where you take an object and realize its emptiness through analysis, and then that's it. The object dissolves and so does its emptiness, there's nothing left to work with. The problem is that you can spend all day dissolving chariots and tables, sprouts and seeds, and it won't necessarily get you deeper than the superficial objects of conventional appearance because that's your starting point and your ending point. In contrast, with parabhāvaśūnyatā, you dissolve an object, but in doing so, realize a deeper level into which the object dissolved. In this way, you can pursue emptiness in progressively deeper levels, far beyond chariots and tables, until you get to the end-point into which all things dissolve, the ālāya-jñāna. The objects dissolve into a basic wisdom awareness that is itself empty of these objects, as described in the gzhanstong literature, and which this early sutta points towards. Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso's Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness does a nice job of explaining this process.

PadmaVonSamba said:
It’s like if a Buddha sits and perceives himself and everything directly and clearly as the vast space between atoms. There’s still emptiness built upon something. if there were nothing, what could one dwell in?

stong gzugs said:
I think the above point kind of distinguishes between different ways that emptiness can be built upon something. This Sūtra below also knocks it out of the park in terms of explanation.

Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra said:
Childish beings may think of hailstones as being gems and take them home, but then they see them melt and think, "Oh, they are empty." Likewise, through reflecting and meditating on utter emptiness, you, Mañjuśrī, see all phenomena dissolve. You even think that liberation, which is not empty, is empty. Just as some people may meditate on gems as being empty due to their mistaking hailstones for gems and seeing those hailstones melt away, you even think of nonempty phenomena as being empty. Seeing phenomena as empty, you also destroy nonempty phenomena as being empty. However, empty phenomena are different from nonempty phenomena. Just like hailstones, the billions of afflictions are empty. Just like hailstones, nonvirtuous phenomena swiftly perish. But the Buddha and liberation are permanent, like a beryl. As for space, buddhas have form, while all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas lack form. The liberation of a buddha is also form, while the liberations of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas lack form, so how can you say that the characteristic of liberation is to be empty? Do not entertain this notion of there being no [such] divisions.

If there are no people in a house, it is empty. If there is no water in a vase, it is empty. If no water flows in a river, it is empty. The house is not empty in all respects—it is called "empty" because there are no people in it. The vase is not empty in all respects—it is called "empty" because there is no water in it.The river is not empty in all respects—it is called "empty" because no water flows in it. Likewise, liberation is not empty in all respects—it is called "empty" because it is free from all flaws. The Buddha is not empty either—he is called empty because he is free from all flaws and lacks any human or divine existence entailing billions of afflictions. Alas, Mañjuśrī, you behave like a mosquito, not understanding the precise meaning of empty and nonempty. The Nirgranthas also meditate on everything’s being empty, so you Nirgrantha mosquito, say no more!



Malcolm said:
No, you abide in the presence of the objects of the six āyatanas and the body, all they are empty of is affliction, desire for rebirth, and [afflictive] ignorance.

stong gzugs said:
Not quite. I've studied Bhikkhu Bodhi and particularly Bhikkhu Ānālayo on this practice, and the full realization of emptiness is accomplished in the stage of recognizing even the emptiness of signlessness, which ends all grasping even onto the experience of emptiness. The next statement about the six sense bases is saying that what remains after fully realizing emptiness in meditation is the continuity of our lives as embodied beings, just now without any influxes. Nirvana with remainder.

Malcolm said:
Amazing, so you are declaring a "first turning sūtra" to be definitive.

stong gzugs said:
Only the sūtras and tantras of the Kṛtayuga Dharma identified by the Omniscient Dölpopa are definitive. You should know that by now

But, for real, given the huge emphasis on anāpānasati and mindfulness in the (first turning) Buddhist world today, it's surprising how underappreciated this emptiness practice is, particularly as the Buddha said it was basically the definitive practice for Tathāgatas.

Cūḷasuññatasutta said:
Ānanda, whatever Tathāgatas, free from attachment and completely awakened, there have been in the past, they all truly dwelled in this emptiness, without distortion, namely in the eradication of the influxes, the influx-free and unconditioned liberation of the mind.

Ānanda, whatever Tathāgatas, free from attachment and completely awakened, there will be in the future, they will all truly dwell in this emptiness, without distortion, namely in the eradication of the influxes, the influx-free and unconditioned liberation of the mind.

Ānanda, I, who am the Tathāgata now, free from attachment and completely awakened, I also truly dwell in this emptiness, without distortion, namely in the eradication of the influxes, the influx-free and unconditioned liberation of the mind.

Ānanda, you should train yourself like this: ‘I shall also truly dwell in this emptiness, without distortion, namely in the eradication of the influxes, the influx-free and unconditioned liberation of the mind.’ Ānanda, you should train yourself like this.

krodha wrote:
This svabhāvaśūnyatā vs parabhāvaśūnyatā dichotomy with the former being misrepresented is nonsense.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 24th, 2023 at 6:27 AM
Title: Re: Current science on COVID 19
Content:


krodha wrote:
They’re parroting a conspiracy theory that circulates the Internet that covid 19 is just the flu rebranded.

heart said:
I agree, a lot of people I know was tested positive for covid. It takes quite a long time to recover from covid because it goes for your lungs. I am still not fully ok. Not like a flue at all.

Johnny Dangerous said:
Minus long COVID or co occurring conditions, it is actually becoming comparable to seasonal flu. That’s not a conspiracy, just how the virus has changed and how much vaccinations have done.

Of course, that does not make it harmless now, only to say that for a large chunk of people catching COVID has become somewhat comparable to catching a seasonal flu.

Denying that it exists, denying its infectiousness, denying that it is more harmful to a certain percentage of people or certain populations is another story of course, and -is-simply conspiracy theory.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2803749

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/31/health/covid-omicron-lung-cells.html

Also, afaik Omicron and subsequent variants by and large effect the lungs less, barring specific vulnerabilities, long COVID, etc.

Don’t remember reading a comparison of chronic lung problems from influenza vs COVID with the current variants, but I’m guessing results would be more equivalent than people think, and I’d love to see such a study if anyone knows of one.

krodha wrote:
It is slowly becoming comparable to the flu because as the human immune system becomes more familiar with the virus, we are seeing less and less of the systemic overreaction in the body that leads to severe cases.

The initial covid variants caused people’s adaptive immune systems to go haywire and overcompensate, which caused the body to attack itself in the process of attacking the infection. As the virus mutated it became more manageable for the body. This historically happens with most novel viruses.

Very different than the conspiracy theory that covid 19 is just wholesale rebranded influenza.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 24th, 2023 at 12:44 AM
Title: Current science on COVID 19
Content:



Malcolm said:
I don't know what Yeshe thought. I do know that the Merigar retreat was a covid spreading event. I doubt my friend was the only person who got covid there. He had remained covid free throughout the pandemic. Covid has an R factor of 6 if no one is taking precautions. It also takes two days to know you are ill, during which time you are the most infectious. my guess is that 25 percent of the in-person audience were infected, mostly people sitting inside, I imagine. Maybe it was brought from Lerab Ling.

ject said:
Getting a runny nose can be caused by anything - dust, hippy perfumes, pollen (got a lot of that flying around right now) and so on.
It used to be called a "flu season" for a reason. Temperatures can drop from nice 22C to nasty 13C just by walking around the corner. Getting a common cold in this time of the year is really easy. Speedy recovery is all, one can wish.

dharmafootsteps said:
Wondering what your point is.

krodha wrote:
They’re parroting a conspiracy theory that circulates the Internet that covid 19 is just the flu rebranded.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 14th, 2023 at 8:56 AM
Title: Re: Christians Struggling to “understand” Buddhism
Content:
KeithA said:
Anyway, back to the Christian bashing!


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 10th, 2023 at 6:17 AM
Title: Re: Clarification on Nyingma view of emptiness
Content:
natusake said:
I do not think we have seen anything in this thread or elsewhere that qualifies as immoral.

krodha wrote:
Being immoral isn’t the issue. I’m sure you’ve been in a social situation involving someone who is very polite while simultaneously exuding the vibe that they do not like you or someone you’re with.

Communication is also expressed in what isn’t said. In person this is much easier to detect, body language, subtle facial expressions, vocal tone or inflection, backhanded remarks, or just the overall energy. Harder to detect online, but same principle applies.

That is all I am pointing out.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 10th, 2023 at 5:08 AM
Title: Re: Clarification on Nyingma view of emptiness
Content:
Könchok Thrinley said:
Not to mention that Treehuggingoctopus was still very nice.

krodha wrote:
A polite aggression.

Lingpupa said:
Or a calm, reasonable disagreement.

krodha wrote:
The vibe is overt, as much as you two are attempting to conceal it with “calm, reasonable disagreement.” But whatever you want to tell yourself.

You and treehuggingoctopus come off like you’re white knuckling it through the politest external display of an internal “frak you” you’re capable of conjuring.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 10th, 2023 at 5:02 AM
Title: Re: Clarification on Nyingma view of emptiness
Content:
Könchok Thrinley said:
Not to mention that Treehuggingoctopus was still very nice.

krodha wrote:
A polite aggression.

Könchok Thrinley said:
Lets call it bluntness. Malcom can be blunt and he is a teacher so he should have morals in check, no? Or are morals just concepts andcwe shouldn't expect teachers to follow them?

krodha wrote:
It is definitely a different than bluntness.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 10th, 2023 at 3:50 AM
Title: Re: Clarification on Nyingma view of emptiness
Content:
Könchok Thrinley said:
Not to mention that Treehuggingoctopus was still very nice.

krodha wrote:
A polite aggression.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 10th, 2023 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: Clarification on Nyingma view of emptiness
Content:



Malcolm said:
I am not shutting down gzhan stong pas. They are free to say whatever they like. I have no power to control them, so stop acting like I do.

treehuggingoctopus said:
This is a complete misunderstanding of the whole situation. You do not need to literally mute someone to ensure that they no longer feel like talking.  Of course you are silencing them, by asserting that they cannot defend it here, are unable to do so, and that their position is risible. I mean, cannot you really see that such adversarial stance is a massive put off to most people? You have a great (and very well-deserved) authority here. You do not even have to speak, people will consider what you will say or think of what they will say before you even open your mouth. If you do speak, and speak in as agonistic fashion as you have in this thread, guess what will happen to your interlocutors. Extremely few people enjoy direct confrontations like this with someone whose expertise and position is vastly superior to theirs.

This should really be patently obvious to all of us here, should have been for years.

stoneinfocus said:
Damn, do y'all talk to any other Dharma teachers this way?

I know Malcolm is somewhat unique in terms of how available he is and how blunt he can be, but the way some people talk to him is pretty wild to me.

krodha wrote:
Indeed. Palpable aggression in this thread.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 6th, 2023 at 2:44 AM
Title: Re: Clarification on Nyingma view of emptiness
Content:
ThreeVows said:
FWIW, I think proper discernment of the third turning is identical to the realization of the path of seeing. The second turning sort of includes this, but it can also be understood in an intellectual manner without this discernment.

Kai lord said:
Instead of equating correct analysis of philosophical tenets from third/second turning with the path of seeing, Its more accurate to go Haribhadra on this; The direct perception of the first five emptinesses (out of eighteen) = realization of the first bhumi.

Given that both turnings teach eighteen emptinesses, Haribhadra's approach will also satisfy adherents from each of the four schools over which turning is superior.

ThreeVows said:
To be clear, my general position or view is that there is an essential progression of understanding that can be presented in a progressive manner.

To one with proper merit, this isn’t necessary to do in some extensive way.

To someone with proper merit, one phrase, or even perhaps a glance, may be sufficient to point out the nature of mind. This, in an essential sense, I would say is the discernment of the innermost intent of the third turning. Even if it is discerned from, say, a phrase found in the Pali Suttas.

The general progression is that, put briefly, initially we have a conceptual understanding of the dharma, of samsara and nirvana, etc.

Then we conceptually work with understanding the emptiness of all dharmas, while simultaneously balancing that with compassion for all beings and phenomena.

Then, we discern that which is beyond the scope of worldly beings, the so called union of emptiness and luminosity, the deathless nectar of the very heart essence of the dharma. This is absolutely beyond the scope of characterization in the minds of ordinary beings, but one may nonetheless use many words to point at it. Fundamentally, however, it must be discerned, not understood.

Generally, the essence of the third turning, I would say, is essentially pointing out the nature of mind properly.

The general scriptural support of this focuses on tathagatagarbha.

The general scriptural support of the second turning focuses on both the emptiness of all dharmas and the fullness of the bodhisattva path.

The general scriptural support of the first turning is basically the agamas/nikayas.

But essentially, the progression is what matters. If someone discerns suchness properly by reading … the ye dharma hetu verse, or from some prajnaparamita sutra, or whatever, then in terms of the essence, they have discerned the meaning of the third turning. But, there are certain deviations that can occur - with the first turning alone, there can be a dualist, sort of pseudo realist understanding.

With the second turning, there can be a sort of obsession with characterizing dharmas as empty. This is a subtle movement or fabrication of the mind.

The third turning proper is unassailable because it is precisely the realization of suchness.

But, some are more concerned with words.

Anyway, I will not respond more on this thread, so others can play as they like.


krodha wrote:
The second and third “turnings” as contemporaneously presented are the prajñāpāramitā and tathāgatagarbha, often along with their ancillary systems. That said, historically there were times when these “turnings” were inverted, tathāgatagarbha being held as provisional to systems like Madhyamaka and the prajñāpāramitā teachings.

This can be seen in texts like the Hevajra which urge aspirants to first investigate the tathāgatagarbha and then follow up with Madhyamaka and so on to clean up any misconceptions that may have arisen from the tathāgatagarbha.

The entire “turning” schema is based on nothing pretty much. I find the model to often be a hindrance to people’s understanding rather than an asset.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 5th, 2023 at 7:11 AM
Title: Re: Clarification on Nyingma view of emptiness
Content:
ThreeVows said:
The third turning proper is unsurpassed as it is the discernment of suchness.

krodha wrote:
Śatasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra:

Suchness empty of suchness is the emptiness of suchness. Whatever is emptiness, that is suchness. There is no emptiness apart from suchness. Suchness is emptiness, emptiness is suchness.

natusake said:
Seems to be well outside of any sort of idea of a blank void that we often see Mahayana accused of, even in Dzogchen texts.

krodha wrote:
Yeah the occasional accusations of śūnyatā being an inert void really just amount to polemical puffery at the end of the day.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 5th, 2023 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: Clarification on Nyingma view of emptiness
Content:
ThreeVows said:
The third turning proper is unsurpassed as it is the discernment of suchness.

krodha wrote:
Śatasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra:

Suchness empty of suchness is the emptiness of suchness. Whatever is emptiness, that is suchness. There is no emptiness apart from suchness. Suchness is emptiness, emptiness is suchness.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 2nd, 2023 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:
yagmort said:
i thought Gambopa's four yogas of mahamudra is basically the rebranded dzogchen semde anyway, so the seeming differences are just nominal?

krodha wrote:
The primary difference is the four yogas are a gradual, consecutive process. The four tingdzins are attributes that are to be ideally recognized immediately and simultaneously.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 2nd, 2023 at 4:54 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:



Malcolm said:
He is the tall poppy around here...

Dawa Ösel said:
Some statments here at least shows, what "qualities" a Dzogchen master should not have, at least non i would follow

Malcolm said:
Have a look at r/Dzogchen on reddit. This is all pretty mild.

krodha wrote:
It’s been pretty tame lately. Just added Joe as a mod too. Sane minds will prevail!


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 1st, 2023 at 6:44 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:
Jules 09 said:
There is no real difference between Dzogchen and Mahamudra.
The words may differ, but the meaning is the same.

Malcolm said:
If you mean only that the ultimate realization of both is the same, we agree, but there there is no ultimate difference in buddhahood by any path.

Otherwise, we disagree.

Jules 09 said:
Once it is seen that all is already accomplished,
then what need is there for disagreement?


krodha wrote:
The Mahāmudra path does not utilize the direct perception of vidyā in its methodology, is the point being made. That is a special feature of atiyoga.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 1st, 2023 at 6:11 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:



Jules 09 said:
The way that you are using the term "rig pa" here is not at all what I would call rig pa, within the context of the Dzogchen teachings. And in the 27 years since I first encountered these teachings, I have never heard any Dzogchen teacher say that rig pa, as pointed out by the guru, is "insufficient".

Malcolm said:
Since the citation comes from one of the authoritative commentaries on the seventeen tantras, you might want to stop being a frog in a well and widen your perspective.
Perhaps this is what you mean by "the introduction to the direct perception of dharmatā".
Or as Tsele Natsok Rangdrol puts it: "seeing the nature of your mind".
Not the same thing. If it were the same thing, there would be no difference between Dzogchen, Lamdre, Mahāmudra, and so on. But the fact is that the direct perception of dharmatā is unique to Dzogchen teachings, as are such teachings as four or six bardos, the six liberations, and so on.
Not the same thing. If it were the same thing, there would be no difference between Dzogchen, Lamdre, Mahāmudra,

Jules 09 said:
There is no real difference between Dzogchen and Mahamudra.
The words may differ, but the meaning is the same.

As Adeu Rinpoche explains:
There are four stages of development in Dzogchen. 

The first stage comes with recognizing rigpa, which is sometimes called manifest dharmata, or innate nature—the natural state seen as it actually is. 

As you progress and your experience deepens, the second stage is called increased meditative experience. The third stage is awareness reaching fullness while the fourth is the exhaustion of all concepts and dualistic phenomena. 
This last stage is equivalent to the stage of nonmeditation in Mahamudra. 

As mentioned above, the ultimate state of enlightenment is being re-enlightened in the pre-enlightened original ground. The great Dzogchen master Paltrül Rinpoche often told his disciples, “You should leave room for progress. You should not think that you are already there and that there is nothing more to attain. Even though it is the state of rigpa, leave room for progress. Don’t be satisfied, it’s too early. There is still room for improvement in your practice.”

What is pointed out according to the Mahamudra approach is the true state of original wakefulness as your ordinary mind. Once this has been pointed out to you, it is called mind-essence. The instruction is: “Look into mind-essence. Sustain mind-essence. This is the way.” 

According to Dzogchen instructions, what is pointed out is called rigpa, which is the intrinsic original wakefulness that is present within you. Once it is pointed out you recognize rigpa and sustain it. There is no real difference between these two teachings. 

Of course, there are some extra instructions in the two systems. It is like approaching Bodhgaya from the south or the north—both roads lead to the same destination. The pointing-out instruction is the same as showing the unmistaken way that leads straight to Bodhgaya. 

If one truly recognizes the way one needs to train to be enlightened, and if one follows this exactly, there is no doubt that this is the unmistaken path. However, one must still follow the path. How swiftly you reach the goal is entirely up to you and your diligence...

Whether you progress according to Dzogchen or Mahamudra, please understand that ultimately there is no real difference. There is not one awakened state called Mahamudra and a separate one known as Dzogchen. It is all of one taste within the expanse of dharmakaya. 

What these two words actually refer to is the basic nature of things. Since all phenomena, all that appears and exists within samsara and nirvana have the stamp of great bliss, it is called the “Great Seal,” which is the literal meaning of Mahamudra. Similarly, since all phenomena are perfected in the expanse of self-existing awareness, it is called the “Great Perfection,” or Dzogchen.

Fruition, or the final result of the path, is described as awakening to true enlightenment within the expanse of the three kayas, or bodies of enlightenment. This is explained to be the empty essence that is realized as dharmakaya, the cognizant nature that is realized as sambhogakaya, and the ever-present capacity that is realized as nirmanakaya. These three kayas are also realized to be indivisible within the single sphere of original wakefulness. This holds true whether we call that state of fruition Mahamudra or Dzogchen.
Source: https://www.lionsroar.com/two-great-paths/

krodha wrote:
The state of Mahāmudra and the state of Dzogchen are the same, but the paths are different.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 29th, 2023 at 8:59 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:


Jules 09 said:
Really?

So, are you saying that practicing the instructions that one personally receives from a guru that holds the unbroken oral/aural lineage of transmission, that can be traced back to Garab Dorje, or Saraha, or Tilopa; is "not enough" ?


Malcolm said:
I said that rig pa, or a guru, etc., is not enough. As Vimalmitra observes:

Similarly, though there is buddhahood in nondual dharmatā, it does not exist in one’s vidyā alone, which is insufficient. Likewise, a guru alone is insufficient. Also, one’s cultivation is insufficient. When these three things meet [vidyā, guru, and cultivation], buddhahood is a certainty.

Not only this, but also there can be flaws in the guru's instruction, even if they have a proper lineage:

The Tantra Without Syllables, the root tantra of the veiw, states:

Therefore, it is said there are no errors in the scriptures,
but errors can arise in the intimate instructions.
pg. 148

Vimalamitra simply notes:

However, since the explanation of the instructions of the guru can be explained with or without error, it seems that errors can arise.
pg. 148

Therefore, it is incumbent upon the student to make sure the instructions they are receiving are consistent with the Dzogchen tantras and commentaries. Even upadeśas are ultimately deceptive. The only thing that counts in Dzogchen is direct perception, as Vimalamitra states:

The intimate instruction that approaches the critical points proper to direct perception does not exist [in the common upadeśas]. Since there is no buddhahood via intimate instructions, which induce a fabricated realization, all intimate instructions also do not exist. If it is asked why, it is because intimate instructions depend on words. Vidyā is free from all words. pg. 167

One needs the intimate instruction of direct perception, and that cannot rely on words:

Likewise, since the experience will arise in one’s continuum through the intimate instructions of the guru, there is liberation without needing to rely on words.
pg. 175

Without this, one simply won't be able to understand the meaning of the Great Perfection. This is one reason it is recommended one seek out a few teachers when one is beginner.

Personally, I have seen many mistaken explanations, particularly, explanations made by Western teachers.

krodha wrote:
Not to hate on western teachers, I applaud their intentions, but I’ve never encountered one apart from you who made this point clear. And given that everything hinges on this point, it is somewhat concerning they aren’t making this connection.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 18th, 2023 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:



heart said:
Actually, rigpa is never more or less obscured.It is always just right there. It is all about recognising or not recognising. We have a lot of habits and grasping that might seem impossible to cut through, but rigpa is right there, right now. We need to relax a bit, that is all.

That said, it isn't always easy.

krodha wrote:
Vidyā may not be “obscured” but it is definitely confused regarding its own appearances and is fully caught up in the ignorance that comes with being associated with the karmavāyus. This is why it is expressed as the mind in sentient beings.

The emptiness of mind and phenomena is what is obscured.

heart said:
The vidya that recognise the basis is not obscured, it is just not recognised.

krodha wrote:
Right, I said it “may not be obscured, but...”


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 18th, 2023 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:
heart said:
However I still feel there is no need to mature and ripen anything. No need to change or improve anything in the rigpa that recognise the basis.

Pema Rigdzin said:
In a real sense, you’re quite right. But from the standpoint of the path, there is a continuum of going from not recognizing rigpa at all to recognizing it—with the karmavayus and the attendant clinging and habit patterns and obscurations being dominant—and being in rigpa 24/7, when all such karmavayus, etc having completely been exhausted and no longer obscuring rigpa at all. Rigpa itself never goes from being weak to strong, but how obscured rigpa is does. Surely you’ve noticed how when you were a beginner and had only just recognized your rigpa it was still easy for attachment, or anger, or whatever to surge forth and bury it, and that over time your ability to maintain or quickly regain rigpa in these circumstances has improved. Maybe it makes sense to speak more in terms of discursive mind and its habits weakening than of rigpa maturing, but honestly it’s all semantics given mind and rigpa are not, in their essence, two things.

If we compare rigpa to water, then it’s just like how impurities don’t actually contaminate water itself—the actually hydrogen and oxygen bound together. When we purify water, we’re not improving the bound hydrogen and oxygen we know as water; we’re just doing away with what is accompanying it and having the effect of seemingly contaminating it.

heart said:
Actually, rigpa is never more or less obscured.It is always just right there. It is all about recognising or not recognising. We have a lot of habits and grasping that might seem impossible to cut through, but rigpa is right there, right now. We need to relax a bit, that is all.

That said, it isn't always easy.

krodha wrote:
Vidyā may not be “obscured” but it is definitely confused regarding its own appearances and is fully caught up in the ignorance that comes with being associated with the karmavāyus. This is why it is expressed as the mind in sentient beings.

The emptiness of mind and phenomena is what is obscured.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 16th, 2023 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:
krodha wrote:
Ok thanks. This is then referring to thögal because otherwise realized prajñā is only accessible to āryas, yes?

Malcolm said:
It's referring to both trekcho and thogal, since the key point of both is nakedly exposing rig pa. That is where the path of Dzogchen actually begins.

krodha wrote:
For non-ati practitioners of the common vehicles realized prajñā only manifests with the vipaśyanā that realizes emptiness though is the distinction I’m making.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 16th, 2023 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:



Malcolm said:
Correct, there is no need to ripen or change anything, unripened rig pa is a term for rig pa which has not been pointed out.

krodha wrote:
Although Longchenpa does at the very least say vidyā is “matured” along the path.

Tshig don mdzod:

de yang gzhi nas ’phags pa’i rig pa sa bon lta bu grol ’khrul gang byed ma nges pas ma smin pa’i rig pa zhes bya ste/ /sangs rgyas su smin par byed pa ni rtogs pa’i shes rab kyis byas te    

Furthermore, since the vidyā [rig pa] that arises from the basis is like a seed, uncertain to produce either liberation or delusion, it is called “unripened vidyā”: that which will mature it into full buddhahood is the prajñā of realization.

Khenpo Jikphun commentary by way of Jean-Luc Achard:

Therefore this state of vidyā [rig pa] is styled as “unripened” [ma smin pa] because it has not yet been “brought to maturity” through the prajñā or sublime knowledge that realises its very nature.

Seems to suggest there is a process of maturation or “ripening” that is occurring from (i) the time that we merely identify a moment of unfabricated consciousness, to (ii) realizing emptiness at third vision where the prajñā of realization is first encountered, to (iii) finally buddhahood at the time of the result. For example.

Malcolm said:
This prajña of realization is not the third vision. It occurs when rigpa is nakedly exposed. Otherwise, the path would not work. Here, in this context Longchenpa is discussing rig pa at the time of the arising of the basis, in the section on the liberation of Samantabhadra and the delusion of sentient beings.

The context that Vimalamitra cites the term in the context of a sentient being who is still subject to transmigration, but we know that anyone who nakedly exposes rig pa in a direct perception will no longer continue in samsara and will achieve realization in this life, the time of death, the bardo, or in a buddhafield.

krodha wrote:
Ok thanks. This is then referring to thögal because otherwise realized prajñā is only accessible to āryas, yes?


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 15th, 2023 at 10:28 PM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:
heart said:
Interesting end to this discussion for me. I went to sleep and dreamed that I was spending a lot of time with ChNNR. He was living in the very north of my country and was very available. We where eating together and but I only remember discussing things like "panini" and that Rinpoche wanted one. When I woke up this morning from that dream I had clear understanding what khroda and Malcolm was trying to say in my mind. That all the different modalities of rigpa are the same rigpa and so on makes perfect sense. However I still feel there is no need to mature and ripen anything. No need to change or improve anything in the rigpa that recognise the basis.

Malcolm said:
Correct, there is no need to ripen or change anything, unripened rig pa is a term for rig pa which has not been pointed out.

krodha wrote:
Although Longchenpa does at the very least say vidyā is “matured” along the path.

Tshig don mdzod:

de yang gzhi nas ’phags pa’i rig pa sa bon lta bu grol ’khrul gang byed ma nges pas ma smin pa’i rig pa zhes bya ste/ /sangs rgyas su smin par byed pa ni rtogs pa’i shes rab kyis byas te    

Furthermore, since the vidyā [rig pa] that arises from the basis is like a seed, uncertain to produce either liberation or delusion, it is called “unripened vidyā”: that which will mature it into full buddhahood is the prajñā of realization.

Khenpo Jikphun commentary by way of Jean-Luc Achard:

Therefore this state of vidyā [rig pa] is styled as “unripened” [ma smin pa] because it has not yet been “brought to maturity” through the prajñā or sublime knowledge that realises its very nature.

Seems to suggest there is a process of maturation or “ripening” that is occurring from (i) the time that we merely identify a moment of unfabricated consciousness, to (ii) realizing emptiness at third vision where the prajñā of realization is first encountered, to (iii) finally buddhahood at the time of the result. For example.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 15th, 2023 at 5:05 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:



heart said:
Well if sentient beings had the vidya that recognised the basis they would all be Kuntuzangpo. So what you say might be correct on a very intellectual level but it have very little bearing on our practice.

krodha wrote:
I feel it has monumental bearings on our practice because it means simply recognizing the mere vidyā that is just the knowing capacity of the mind is enough to serve as a foundation for practice.

My heart goes out to people who are confused and think they need to have some sort of extraordinary transcendent insight to practice atiyoga.

heart said:
Ok, so lets stop this back and forth on this your lovely and compassionate note. Truly all sentient beings have the capacity.

krodha wrote:
I think it’s a friendly discussion/debate. You and I had the opportunity to spend time together in meat space. I consider you a friend and I am not interpreting this interaction as an argument or even as being antagonistic in any way.

Plus discussions like this bring a nice energy to the forum, at least for me because I like to talk about dharma. Good to continue if you want to and the more people that join in the merrier.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 15th, 2023 at 4:52 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:



heart said:
As both you and Malcolm mentioned many times there are multiple ways to use the word vidya. In all descriptions I read on how samsara appears it is said that in the basis from the beginning there was neither vidya nor avidya. When Kuntuzangpo recognised the appearance rising from the basis that was vidya, when sentient beings didn't recognise it become mind, avidya. So sentient beings never had that vidya that Kuntuzangpo had. Alas you are talking about an other form of vidya.

krodha wrote:
All forms of vidyā are just different modalities of one’s single vidyā.

Vimalamitra concludes that excerpt describing the different types of vidyā by making sure to clarify that they are all just subsets of a single vidyā.

heart said:
Well if sentient beings had the vidya that recognised the basis they would all be Kuntuzangpo. So what you say might be correct on a very intellectual level but it have very little bearing on our practice.

krodha wrote:
I feel it has monumental bearing on our practice because it means simply recognizing the mere vidyā that is just the knowing capacity of the mind is enough to serve as a foundation for practice.

My heart goes out to people who are confused and think they need to have some sort of extraordinary transcendent insight to practice atiyoga.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 15th, 2023 at 4:23 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:



heart said:
That vidya couldn't possibly be the vidya we are talking about here.

krodha wrote:
When the rtsal of vidyā gets mixed with the karmavāyu it becomes deluded and takes on the appearance of the mind. The “mind” is just this habitual pattern of non-recognition and ignorance.

heart said:
As both you and Malcolm mentioned many times there are multiple ways to use the word vidya. In all descriptions I read on how samsara appears it is said that in the basis from the beginning there was neither vidya nor avidya. When Kuntuzangpo recognised the appearance rising from the basis that was vidya, when sentient beings didn't recognise it become mind, avidya. So sentient beings never had that vidya that Kuntuzangpo had. Alas you are talking about an other form of vidya.

krodha wrote:
All forms of vidyā are just different modalities of one’s single vidyā.

Vimalamitra concludes that excerpt describing the different types of vidyā by making sure to clarify that they are all just subsets of a single vidyā.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 15th, 2023 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:



heart said:
How could vidya become mind? Mind is avidya.

krodha wrote:
Vimalamitra:

As such, knowledge (vidyā, rig pa) itself becomes ignorance (ma rig pa, āvidyā) and nondelusion becomes delusion.

heart said:
That vidya couldn't possibly be the vidya we are talking about here.

krodha wrote:
When the rtsal of vidyā gets mixed with the karmavāyu it becomes deluded and takes on the appearance of the mind. The “mind” is just this habitual pattern of non-recognition and ignorance.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 15th, 2023 at 3:37 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:



heart said:
Of course vidya is not equivalent to the basis, who said that? Vidya is the knowing of the basis and it isn't subject to delusion but mind sure is. Vidya is beyond mind if it wasn't there would be no path and everything would be mind.

krodha wrote:
Vidyā becomes the mind. Vidyā becomes avidyā. It is just the same mindstream in an afflicted or unaffiicted state.

heart said:
How could vidya become mind? Mind is avidya.

krodha wrote:
Vimalamitra:

As such, knowledge (vidyā, rig pa) itself becomes ignorance (ma rig pa, āvidyā) and nondelusion becomes delusion.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 15th, 2023 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:



heart said:
My only comment is that this doesn't correspond with what I been taught. Also if someone said what you are saying here 10 years ago both you and Malcolm would have laughed out loud. So I stick with what my Guru told me and leave the gradual Dzogchen to you.

krodha wrote:
Even Norbu Rinpoche said vidyā is not equivalent to the basis. Vidyā is subject to delusion while the basis is not. I don’t have the excerpt on hand from ChNN but it has been posted here before.

And not to be too literal because I get that you’re just trying to make a point, but I was saying this same thing around 10 years ago.

heart said:
Of course vidya is not equivalent to the basis, who said that? Vidya is the knowing of the basis and it isn't subject to delusion but mind sure is. Vidya is beyond mind if it wasn't there would be no path and everything would be mind.

krodha wrote:
Vidyā becomes the mind. Vidyā becomes avidyā. It is just the same mindstream in an afflicted or unaffiicted state.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 15th, 2023 at 3:09 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:



heart said:
I am sorry Malcolm but since I don't know the context of these teachings it is difficult to understand what Vimalamitra is talking about. I have just repeated what my teacher told me. He never said that vidya needed to be matured and ripened and the above quote don't mention that either. He very clearly said that only time was an factor. The quality of the basis is immaculate and don't need to be improved in any way.

krodha wrote:
Basis is immaculate and complete, but as atiyogins, our knowledge [vidyā] of the basis is what we refine.

That knowledge ranges from nonexistent in everyday sentient beings to complete in Buddhas.

heart said:
My only comment is that this doesn't correspond with what I been taught. Also if someone said what you are saying here 10 years ago both you and Malcolm would have laughed out loud. So I stick with what my Guru told me and leave the gradual Dzogchen to you.

krodha wrote:
Even Norbu Rinpoche said vidyā is not equivalent to the basis. Vidyā is subject to delusion while the basis is not. I don’t have the excerpt on hand from ChNN but it has been posted here before.

And not to be too literal because I get that you’re just trying to make a point, but I was saying this same thing around 10 years ago.

Also I am not saying Dzogchen is gradual. An island of gold is not gradually or suddenly gold, it’s always already been gold... but if you have a knowledge obscuration that prevents you from recognizing it is gold, then there may be a process of rectifying that issue.

Much like someone with jaundice that sees a white conch shell as yellow. The shell is always already white, but there is a cognitive obscuration that prevents that from being seen correctly.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 15th, 2023 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: H.E. Dzogchen Khenpo Choga Rinpoche
Content:
Sādhaka said:
Malcolm,

I figured someone would say something like that.

If you saw the progression of my posts in that other thread though, you’ll see that towards the end I admitted that I was hasty in my judgement, and would owe a apology to the 14th Dalai Lama based on new information that had come out.

I feel like a jerk now; and at the same time, if anything, this only reinforces what I just posted in reply to Gelukman here.

Malcolm said:
I did see the progression. But your statement rather reminded me of Jamie Tartt complaining to Ted Lasso about Zava being a self-centered jerk.

krodha wrote:
I’ve only caught glimpses of this show but this saw this scene the other night while my folks were watching it.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 15th, 2023 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:



heart said:
I already answered this. Once you recognised vidya in direct introduction the path is to familiarise yourself with that vidya. Vidya isn't matured or ripened it is only prolonged. And also if you don't get a "fully qualified" experience of vidya during direct introduction then you didn't get it.

Malcolm said:
Vimalamitra states in the Lamp that Summarizes Vidyā in the Variegated Syllables section of the Vima Nyingthig:
3.1 The vidyā that apprehends characteristics [when one is a beginner], called “the vidyā that nominally designates generic and specific phenomena,” is merely one’s clear and nonconceptual consciousness known to oneself, contaminated with many cognitions.

3.2 The [vidyā that] appropriates the basis [226] generates all the consciousnesses when present in one’s body and abides as mere intrinsic clarity. This is called “unripened vidyā,”

3.3 The vidyā of the abiding basis is the reality of the essence, original purity, that exists possessing the three pristine consciousnesses. The vidyā which is not covered by partiality [endowed with the nature of the pristine consciousness of compassion] is present as the essence of omniscient pristine consciousness...

3.4 The vidyā of insight is those vivid appearances when the instruction is demonstrated. It is called “the self-appearance endowed with the essence of the bindu."...

3.5 The vidyā of thögal is [227] the absence of increase or decrease in experience, having reached the full measure of appearance...

Are those [five] vidyās different or not? They are not different because there is nothing more than a single essence.

heart said:
I am sorry Malcolm but since I don't know the context of these teachings it is difficult to understand what Vimalamitra is talking about. I have just repeated what my teacher told me. He never said that vidya needed to be matured and ripened and the above quote don't mention that either. He very clearly said that only time was an factor. The quality of the basis is immaculate and don't need to be improved in any way.

krodha wrote:
Basis is immaculate and complete, but as atiyogins, our knowledge [vidyā] of the basis is what we refine.

That knowledge ranges from nonexistent in everyday sentient beings to complete in Buddhas.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 14th, 2023 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:
heart said:
It's true, never heard that….


Sādhaka said:
Ripening, realizing, until reaching the full-measure, many short-moments, familiarizing, etc.; like Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche having said that even shortly after D.I. (regarding most individuals anyway), most are like an baby abandoned on the battlefield etc.

And also like I’d said on the previous page or so of this thread; there are the Three Kayas of the respective Base, Path, & Result (that from the ultimate perspective, are not different from one another).

If we conflate these things, then we’re taking Semde as not only the Base, but also as the Result, without considering the Path, yea?. Of course Semde is important regarding the View; however there’s also a ‘reason’ why Semde isn’t Pith.

I mean there are said to have been Cig Car Bas that have been rare; yet what’s holding us back from being ones our ‘selves’…? (don’t take this as me trying to lay all this out as implying the Result as being so far away that we fall into nihilism as an result)

Kai lord said:
It seems to me that one arguing from the prospectives of Togal, where the first vision is often described as an initial glimpse followed by increase of experience in the second and full measure  in the third, etc while another is arguing from the prospectives of Trekchod practices where holding the view 24/7 is the main objective rather than expanding one's vision.

Thats why it seems like they are talking pass each other.

krodha wrote:
Even in trekchö vidyā ripens because it gets increasingly sharp and strong, and then begins to break through into realizing emptiness, which involves samādhi infused with prajñā that increases in duration as kleśas are burned.

What vidyā is capable of knowing ripens as well, even in trekchö, going from cognizing conditioned objects like a normal person to vipaśyanā that knows nonarising.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 14th, 2023 at 7:15 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:
krodha wrote:
I’m saying both are true and intertwined.

stong gzugs said:
Ah, helpful clarification, thank you! If I'm understanding you correctly, perhaps one problem people encounter on the path is when they mistake a shallow level of vidyā for the real thing and try to stretch it out horizontally before they go deep enough vertically? (Maybe mistaking the neutral basis for vidyā is an example of this?)

krodha wrote:
Skillfully cultivating the former will result in the latter. No way to access the latter first unless you’re a rare practitioner.

The “shallow level” is the real thing, it just has to awaken, which it will if you skillfully integrate the view and the meditation.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 14th, 2023 at 7:04 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:
heart said:
It's true, never heard that….


Sādhaka said:
Ripening, realizing, until reaching the full-measure, many short-moments, familiarizing, etc.; like Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche having said that even shortly after D.I. (regarding most individuals anyway), most are like an baby abandoned on the battlefield etc.

And also like I’d said on the previous page or so of this thread; there are the Three Kayas of the respective Base, Path, & Result (that from the ultimate perspective, are not different from one another).

If we conflate these things, then we’re taking Semde as not only the Base, but also as the Result, without considering the Path, yea?. Of course Semde is important regarding the View; however there’s also a ‘reason’ why Semde isn’t Pith.

I mean there are said to have been Cig Car Bas that have been rare; yet what’s holding us back from being ones our ‘selves’…? (don’t take this as me trying to lay all this out as implying the Result as being so far away that we fall into nihilism as an result)

heart said:
Feel free to quote Tulku Ugyen saying that vidya need to be matured and ripened.

krodha wrote:
There are many passages where Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche is discussing the maturation of vidyā but he is not referring to it as that specifically.

He does make a distinction between (i) rigpa as gnas gyu shes pa or the mere knowing of the mind that notices the movement of thought and stillness, and (ii) rigpa as rangjung rigpa which is the definitive awakened expression of rigpa. Says they are very different.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 14th, 2023 at 6:54 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:
stong gzugs said:
Would it be fair to sum up the discussion as follows: krodha says there is a vertical dimension to vidyā and we can have shallower or deeper levels of it (based on its maturity/ripening), whereas heart is saying that there is only one level of vidyā (no need for ripening), but the horizontal dimension is what matters (based on how long we stretch this vidyā out to encompass our day)? If so, this is an interesting distinction.

krodha wrote:
I’m saying both are true and intertwined.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 14th, 2023 at 6:15 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:
heart said:
I am sorry krodha but my master never said that you need to improve (ripen and mature) vidya you just need to be able to stay longer in vidya. Thats it.

krodha wrote:
Vidyā is matured and ripened by “staying longer in it.” I’m admittedly surprised you’ve never heard of this principle of “ripening” vidyā.

heart said:
It's true, never heard that vidya need to be matured and ripened.

krodha wrote:
That is what the “path” is.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 14th, 2023 at 5:38 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:


krodha wrote:
It is the same continuum of vidyā, but it is not yet the modality of vidyā as the “knowledge of the essence [snying po] that permeates all which is free of avidyā” as Vimalamitra says. Thus it is akin to an example jñāna.

Just like an example jñāna, as the mere clarity of mind, the vidyā of direct introduction is also just the mere clarity of mind that we fuse with the “view” in order to ripen that vidyā with the prajñā of realization so that it becomes the “knowledge of the essence [snying po] that permeates all which is free of avidyā.”

heart said:
Sorry man, I don't buy that. Direct introduction gives a short experience of “knowledge of the essence [snying po] that permeates all which is free of avidyā” but it doesn't last long. So when "deciding on one point" all aspect of samsara arise as experience of body, speech and mind but one keep returning to the “knowledge of the essence", thus deciding on that.

Tata1 said:
This is pretty standar dzogchen. You can also read this in Chnn commentary on his longsal trekchod

krodha wrote:
Standard sure, but gets fairly technical in Norbu Rinpoche’s presentation. The scope and depth of detail in Rinpoche’s knowledge of these tenets really shines in those writings. Truly one of the greatest and unmatched masters of recent times.

Specifically on page 111 of Longsal Vol. 5, Rinpoche discusses the “instant rigpa” and how its role as an immediate condition concomitant with mind serves to manifest the appearance of dualistic perceptions. He also discusses how rigpa itself appears as the mind.

Then on page 117 Rinpoche notes that the instant rigpa (which is referenced as a white light) is the dang of rigpa, symbol of the mind, and is "the rigpa that retains its characteristics" which is a reference to the species of rigpa Vimalamitra coins "the vidyā that apprehends characteristics" per Malcolm's translation.

I actually wrote about this on Vajracakra years ago (RIP to that forum), the following is from one of those old posts:

[Vimalamitra’s definition of “the vidyā that apprehends characteristics” unpacked further:] "Characteristic is called 'the vidyā which designates general phenomena and just its own names.' Its action is just-that-itself being a clear non-conceptual awareness, which is polluted by many cognitions." Granted [Norbu] Rinpoche does state that the instant rigpa becomes "the all-perceiving mental consciousness" when the instant rigpa's rtsal is not recognized as self-display.

Rinpoche says that the instant rigpa expresses itself in this manner once the fourfold conditions arise that manifest obstacles to knowledge (and rigpa can possess knowledge obscurations, as Vimalamitra states per Malcolm: "Vidyā with knowledge obscurations is knowing and lucid." ), he then states that the instant rigpa is the "immediate condition concomitant with the mind" which, as Malcolm has pointed out before, is the “the immediately simultaneous and antecedent condition” that is the combination of the causal, dominant and objective conditions.

This is just saying that when this instant rigpa does not recognize its self-display it becomes afflicted mind, but it is the same capacity (of rigpa) that becomes the mere clarity of mind, it is still 'rigpa', it is just confused about its appearances (hence; ma rig pa).


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 14th, 2023 at 5:22 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:
heart said:
I am sorry krodha but my master never said that you need to improve (ripen and mature) vidya you just need to be able to stay longer in vidya. Thats it.

krodha wrote:
Vidyā is matured and ripened by “staying longer in it.” I’m admittedly surprised you’ve never heard of this principle of “ripening” vidyā.

I am not trying to keep this going to get the last word in or anything, we can simply agree to disagree on this point, but here are some citations that help to illustrate how and why vidyā is ripened or requires ripening.

I’ll preface this by saying I agree with you that the vidyā of direct introduction is the same vidyā (the same continuum of vidyā) as the vidyā of the third vision, but... the vidyā of direct introduction is not qualitatively equivalent in expression to the vidyā of the third vision. The latter is “ripened” whereas the former is not.

I do hope we at least agree that the qualitative expression of vidyā is transformed on the path. Dudjom Rinpoche uses the example of dawn, daybreak and midday to describe how vidyā develops:

Similarly: first, the rigpa [vidyā] of having had the introduction is like the first part of the early dawn; in the middle, the rigpa of having gained assurance, free from equipoise and post-attainment is like the daybreak; and finally the rigpa of having gained liberation from extremes is like the sun shining.

The single continuum of vidyā is “ripened” and refined along the path because it is gradually divested of obscurations.

At the time of direct introduction, vidyā is essentially just one’s dualistic consciousness [vijñāna]. The Sun that Illuminates the Meaning:

The vidyā of migrating beings itself appears as the mental consciousness [vijñāna] in terms of apprehending subjects and apprehended objects. When vidyā manifests its own primal nature, the mental consciousness manifests as self-originated pristine consciousness [jñāna], and then the pure basis of the mental consciousness (free from the root of an apprehending subject and apprehended objects) brings samsara to an end.

At the time of the third vision, emptiness is realized and vijñāna collapses so that jñāna manifests as the practitioner’s prevailing modality of cognition, this is called “the full measure of vidyā.” The span of the fourth vision is the process of cultivating that equipoise of an ārya until all afflictive obscurations are totally exhausted and the nature of mind—vidyā as dharmakāya—remains completely unobstructed.

Vidyā has to be matured and ripened by eliminating obscurations. As the path progresses, vidyā is “purified” of the afflictive factors that cause it to be enveloped in dualistic consciousness. Longchenpa:

That being so, it is very important to distinguish mind and wisdom because all meditation is just that: all methods of purifying vāyu and vidyā are that; and in the end at the time of liberation, vidyā is purified of all obscurations because it is purified of the mind.
The prajñā [shes rab] of realization [rtogs pa] is actually what “ripens” vidyā into the dharmakāya.

Longchenpa:

Furthermore, since the vidyā [rig pa] that arises from the basis is like a seed, uncertain to produce either liberation or delusion, it is called “unripened vidyā”: that which will mature it into full buddhahood is the prajñā of realization.
From the dgongs pa zang thal explanatory tantra:

Since wisdom [prajñā] arose to vidyā, it naturally formed as dharmakāya.
.
heart said:
That is why it isn't a gradual path, in a gradual path there is indeed something to improve.

krodha wrote:
Vidyā is innately pure, but because it becomes negatively influenced by delusion, the qualitative expression of vidyā must be “improved.” Not only that, but what vidyā effectively “knows” must be improved and refined. The vidyā of everyday persons is expressed as vijñāna - it can only know conditioned objects (unless we are discussing the visions). The vidyā of Buddhas is expressed as jñāna - it does not perceive conditioned objects.

Atiyoga is a soteriological system that helps us get from one point to the other. Even though this all occurs within the “non-gradual” single bhūmi that is the unceasing continuum of vidyā, there is still a gradual refinement of vidyā on the path.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 14th, 2023 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:



heart said:
Unripened just means not fully realised, it doesn't mean that that vidya wasn't fully experienced as you seem to say.

krodha wrote:
It is the same continuum of vidyā, but it is not yet the modality of vidyā as the “knowledge of the essence [snying po] that permeates all which is free of avidyā” as Vimalamitra says. Thus it is akin to an example jñāna.

Just like an example jñāna, as the mere clarity of mind, the vidyā of direct introduction is also just the mere clarity of mind that we fuse with the “view” in order to ripen that vidyā with the prajñā of realization so that it becomes the “knowledge of the essence [snying po] that permeates all which is free of avidyā.”

heart said:
Sorry man, I don't buy that. Direct introduction gives a short experience of “knowledge of the essence [snying po] that permeates all which is free of avidyā” but it doesn't last long.

krodha wrote:
If you’re very ripe, that may occur. The vast, vast majority does not have that degree of insight during direct introduction, and they don’t need to. All that is required is recognizing a moment of unfabricated consciousness [ma bcos pa'i shes pa skad cig ma]. Or vidyā in a direct perception, but both are just unripened vidyā.

heart said:
So when "deciding on one point" all aspect of samsara arise as experience of body, speech and mind but one keep returning to the “knowledge of the essence", thus deciding on that.

krodha wrote:
“Deciding on one point” just means you understand the continuum of vidyā is where buddhahood occurs, and nowhere else. All one has to do is to mature that unripened vidyā and buddhahood is a guarantee. That is all “deciding on one point” means.

That is why Vimalamitra makes this statement:
Fire is produced through the meeting of two things: the meeting of a person’s hands with a spindle. The fire does not exist in the spindle, nor does it exist in the hands of the person. Fire arises when three things meet: the hand, the spindle, and the fireboard. Similarly, though there is buddhahood in nondual dharmatā, it does not exist in one’s vidyā alone, which is insufficient. Likewise, a guru alone is insufficient. Also, one’s cultivation is insufficient. When these three things meet [vidyā, guru, and cultivation], buddhahood is a certainty.
You must “cultivate” i.e., ripen and mature the vidyā that the guru introduces you to and then buddhahood is a certainty. But vidyā alone without cultivation is not enough, just like an example jñāna alone without cultivation is insufficient.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 14th, 2023 at 1:45 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:



heart said:
I haven't read that book so I can't really comment on that but I never heard direct introduction compared with anything but the fourth empowerment and that is the "true wisdom".

krodha wrote:
It is compared to an example jñāna because it is the same continuum of vidyā from direct introduction to buddhahood, but vidyā at the time of direct introduction is “unripened” [ma smin pa].

heart said:
Unripened just means not fully realised, it doesn't mean that that vidya wasn't fully experienced as you seem to say.

krodha wrote:
It is the same continuum of vidyā, but it is not yet the modality of vidyā as the “knowledge of the essence [snying po] that permeates all which is free of avidyā” as Vimalamitra says. Thus it is akin to an example jñāna.

Just like an example jñāna, as the mere clarity of mind, the vidyā of direct introduction is also just the mere clarity of mind that we fuse with the “view” in order to ripen that vidyā with the prajñā of realization. Then it becomes the “knowledge of the essence [snying po] that permeates all which is free of avidyā” (actual jñāna).


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 14th, 2023 at 12:14 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:



heart said:
When you talk about the dpe'i ye shes, that is according to rywiki: Symbolic wisdom. The wisdom which is the unity of bliss and emptiness of the third empowerment and which is used to introduce the 'true wisdom' of the fourth empowerment.

krodha wrote:
Right, Patrul Rinpoche is saying that the vidyā we are introduced to at the time of direct introduction is essentially like an example jñāna.

florin said:
Right. What is "example jnanna" and did your late teacher CNNr gave direct introduction to an example ?

If he did, did he say that ?

krodha wrote:
Norbu Rinpoche taught that “instant rigpa” is equivalent to “the vidyā that apprehends characteristics” as coined by Vimalamitra. This means he is acknowledging that the vidyā we recognize during direct introduction is unripened.

I honestly don’t understand why this is controversial, we don’t start off with an awakened form of vidyā. Awakening does not occur until the third vision when vidyā reaches its “full measure.”


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 13th, 2023 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:



heart said:
When you talk about the dpe'i ye shes, that is according to rywiki: Symbolic wisdom. The wisdom which is the unity of bliss and emptiness of the third empowerment and which is used to introduce the 'true wisdom' of the fourth empowerment.

krodha wrote:
Right, Patrul Rinpoche is saying that the vidyā we are introduced to at the time of direct introduction is essentially like an example jñāna.

heart said:
I haven't read that book so I can't really comment on that but I never heard direct introduction compared with anything but the fourth empowerment and that is the "true wisdom".

krodha wrote:
It is compared to an example jñāna because it is the same continuum of vidyā from direct introduction to buddhahood, but vidyā at the time of direct introduction is “unripened” [ma smin pa].


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 13th, 2023 at 10:54 PM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:



heart said:
Direct introduction is not the third empowerment.

krodha wrote:
Patrul Rinpoche is not referring to the third empowerment, he is referring to what is encountered in direct introduction, in the context of atiyoga.

heart said:
When you talk about the dpe'i ye shes, that is according to rywiki: Symbolic wisdom. The wisdom which is the unity of bliss and emptiness of the third empowerment and which is used to introduce the 'true wisdom' of the fourth empowerment.

krodha wrote:
Right, Patrul Rinpoche is saying that the vidyā we are introduced to at the time of direct introduction is essentially like an example jñāna.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 13th, 2023 at 8:55 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:



heart said:
That is Tantra, not Dzogchen.

krodha wrote:
Curious how you came to that conclusion.

This is from Patrul Rinpoche’s text on advice titled gzhan yang zhal shes ‘thor bu which accompanies his exposition titled theg mchog a ti’ i man ngag gnas lugs gsal ston or “Clear Elucidation of True Nature: An Esoteric (Intimate) Instruction on the Sublime Approach of Ati”

There is a difference between the vidyā of direct introduction and the vidyā of āryas, this is why Vimalamitra names numerous modalities of vidyā.

Mind and the jñāna of the dharmakāya are not simultaneously present as prevailing modalities of cognition. Dharmakāya is the nature of the mind, but mind and mental factors have to cease for dharmakāya to manifest, this does not mean merely stopping thought for a moment in hedewa.

heart said:
Dharmakāya is the nature of the mind, but mind and mental factors have to cease for dharmakāya to manifest, this does not mean merely stopping thought for a moment in hedewa.

Jules 09 said:
That is why the direct mind transmission (blessings / jin lap), of an authentic lineage holder is necessary:
According to the common approach of Secret Mantrayāna, by means of the wisdom of example in the third empowerment, one is introduced to the real, ultimate wisdom in the fourth empowerment.

Here, according to the special approach of the great masters of the practice lineage, the nature of mind, the face of rigpa, is introduced in and upon the very dissolution of conceptual mind.
https://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/patrul-rinpoche/tsik-sum-nedek-commentary

Hence:
Homage to the masters that have the capacity to point out the Dharmakaya nature of mind, rigpa;
because that alone is most important.

krodha wrote:
Depends on how the “dissolution of conceptual mind” is understood. Some are asserting it is just stopping thought for a moment.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 13th, 2023 at 5:59 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:



heart said:
That is Tantra, not Dzogchen.

krodha wrote:
Curious how you came to that conclusion.

This is from Patrul Rinpoche’s text on advice titled gzhan yang zhal shes ‘thor bu which accompanies his exposition titled theg mchog a ti’ i man ngag gnas lugs gsal ston or “Clear Elucidation of True Nature: An Esoteric (Intimate) Instruction on the Sublime Approach of Ati”

heart said:
Direct introduction is not the third empowerment.

krodha wrote:
Patrul Rinpoche is not referring to the third empowerment, he is referring to what is encountered in direct introduction, in the context of atiyoga.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 13th, 2023 at 5:49 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:



heart said:
To tell you the truth krodha I really don't think you are right here. Mundane vidya is just the intelligence of our ordinary mind and that is not what is introduced at the moment of direct introduction. If you where correct Dzogchen would be a very very gradual path but it isn't. Dharmakaya can be directly introduced and that is the first word of Garab Dorje. Strangely enough I feel Jules is correct this once.

krodha wrote:
Patrul Rinpoche:
Moreover, the phrase “to see the essence of mind” refers to merely the general seeing of symbolic pristine wisdom [dpe'i ye she's] that is skillfully introduced. Other than that, the authentic essence of totally nonconceptual pristine wisdom of natural intrinsic awareness is realized only by those who have attained the level of noble ones [āryas].

heart said:
That is Tantra, not Dzogchen.

krodha wrote:
Curious how you came to that conclusion.

This is from Patrul Rinpoche’s text on advice titled gzhan yang zhal shes ‘thor bu which accompanies his exposition titled theg mchog a ti’ i man ngag gnas lugs gsal ston or “Clear Elucidation of True Nature: An Esoteric (Intimate) Instruction on the Sublime Approach of Ati”

There is a difference between the vidyā of direct introduction and the vidyā of āryas, this is why Vimalamitra names numerous modalities of vidyā.

Mind and the jñāna of the dharmakāya are not simultaneously present as prevailing modalities of cognition. Dharmakāya is the nature of the mind, but mind and mental factors have to cease for dharmakāya to manifest, this does not mean merely stopping thought for a moment in hedewa.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 13th, 2023 at 5:20 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:



Jules 09 said:
So, you believe that The Three Vital Points of Garab Dorje are mere rhetoric ?

krodha wrote:
Verbiage such as “liberation” and “dharmakāya” that is used during direct introduction is not literal.

Is dharmakāya found apart from the vidyā identified during direct introduction? No.

Is vidyā ultimately the dharmakāya? Yes.

But is that mundane vidyā expressed as dharmakāya currently at the time of direct introduction? No.

heart said:
To tell you the truth krodha I really don't think you are right here. Mundane vidya is just the intelligence of our ordinary mind and that is not what is introduced at the moment of direct introduction. If you where correct Dzogchen would be a very very gradual path but it isn't. Dharmakaya can be directly introduced and that is the first word of Garab Dorje. Strangely enough I feel Jules is correct this once.

krodha wrote:
Patrul Rinpoche:
Moreover, the phrase “to see the essence of mind” refers to merely the general seeing of symbolic pristine wisdom [dpe'i ye she's] that is skillfully introduced. Other than that, the authentic essence of totally nonconceptual pristine wisdom of natural intrinsic awareness is realized only by those who have attained the level of noble ones [āryas].


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 13th, 2023 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:





Jules 09 said:
Really?



https://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/patrul-rinpoche/tsik-sum-nedek-commentary


krodha wrote:
Like I said, lofty rhetoric, but not literal.

The actual dharmakāya is not known until later in the path, third and fourth visions. Liberation certainly does not occur until the time of the result.

Jules 09 said:
So, you believe that The Three Vital Points of Garab Dorje are mere rhetoric ?

krodha wrote:
Verbiage such as “liberation” and “dharmakāya” that is used during direct introduction is not literal.

Is dharmakāya found apart from the vidyā identified during direct introduction? No.

Is vidyā ultimately the dharmakāya? Yes.

But is that mundane vidyā expressed as dharmakāya currently at the time of direct introduction? No.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 13th, 2023 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:



Kai lord said:
We simply call it "Lamdre"

krodha wrote:
Sure, but the meaning really pertains to the activity of generating the yidam and mandala. The path is the meditation on the so-called “impure” yidam which signifies the result, that is taking the “result as the path.” Then, you actualize the pure yidam, total realization of the nature of mind.

Which is just to say Jules response does not really make sense in a Dzogchen context. Even though Vairocana says vidyā is the yidam of atiyogins.

Kai lord said:
Actually thats rather simplistic to describe Lamdre. What taking "result as the path" really means, is that the practitioner upon receiving the "example gnosis" given or introduce during the third empowerment and after reinforce by the fourth, use that view as a basis and practices in a way that unite both Kyerim and Dzogrim.

Subsequently upon dissolving the four pulsations, etc, one experiences the union of great Bliss and emptiness and Buddhahood or the resultant Mahamudra is thereby achieved.

On the side note, fortunate students can even realize the actual gnosis and attain the path of seeing in the third/fourth empowerment.

You are right that this is

krodha wrote:
All well and good. As long as it’s clear it doesn’t mean what our friend was suggesting it means.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 13th, 2023 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:



Kai lord said:
We simply call it "Lamdre"

krodha wrote:
Sure, but the meaning really pertains to the activity of generating the yidam and mandala. The path is the meditation on the so-called “impure” yidam which signifies the result, that is taking the “result as the path.” Then, you actualize the pure yidam, total realization of the nature of mind.

Which is just to say Jules response does not really make sense in a Dzogchen context. Even though Vairocana says vidyā is the yidam of atiyogins.

Kai lord said:
Which is just to say Jules response does not really make sense in a Dzogchen context.

Jules 09 said:
Really?
Since it is vital to cut through the flow of arising thoughts, and destroy meditation made by the mind, the sound ‘phaṭ!’ should be fierce, forceful and abrupt: “Fierce, forceful, and abrupt. How amazing (emaho)!”

At this moment, you are free from all fixed notions of what mind might be, and liberation itself is actualized: “There is nothing there: transfixed in wonder,”

In that state of dharmakāya, devoid of any reference or reliance whatsoever, all-penetrating, naked awareness dwells, just as it is, as the wisdom that transcends the mind, and so: “Struck by wonder (hedawa), and yet all is transparently clear (zang tal lé)”.
https://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/patrul-rinpoche/tsik-sum-nedek-commentary


krodha wrote:
Like I said, lofty rhetoric, but not literal.

The actual dharmakāya is not known until later in the path, third and fourth visions. Liberation certainly does not occur until the time of the result.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 13th, 2023 at 1:49 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:
krodha wrote:
Taking the “result as the path” is anuttarayogatantra,

Kai lord said:
We simply call it "Lamdre"

krodha wrote:
Sure, but the meaning really pertains to the activity of generating the yidam and mandala. The path is the meditation on the so-called “impure” yidam which signifies the result, that is taking the “result as the path.” Then, you actualize the pure yidam, total realization of the nature of mind.

Which is just to say Jules response does not really make sense in a Dzogchen context. Even though Vairocana says vidyā is the yidam of atiyogins.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 13th, 2023 at 1:41 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:





Jules 09 said:
I would suggest that he is referring to the actual dharmakaya: " recognize this and this alone".

krodha wrote:
He is referring to vidyā as an example jñāna [dpe'i ye she's], called "the dharmakāya of the basis." The entire passage you've cited above is strictly concerned with utilizing he de ba to help aspirants recognize that form of mundane vidyā that is used as a foundation for practice. The rhetoric is lofty per usual but is not literal in the sense that you are actualizing the definitive form of dharmakāya during direct introduction. That would be nice, but very unrealistic. Only cig car bas are capable of that. We are mostly rim gyis pas and thod rgal bas, and predominantly the former.


Jules 09 said:
https://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/patrul-rinpoche/tsik-sum-nedek-commentary

Otherwise, Dzogchen becomes a kind of gradual path...

krodha wrote:
Well, it is gradual from the standpoint of the "mode of appearances" [snang tshul]. The path of atiyoga, thögal, for example, is very gradual, but in a different context it is not gradual at all. Context is king here, and it is impossible to make blanketed statements in that regard.

Jules 09 said:
Which brings us back to the original topic of this thread.

As Old Bob wrote:



Homage to the masters that have the capacity to point out the Dharmakaya nature of mind, rigpa;
because that alone is most important.

krodha wrote:
Just as long as the basis isn't being mistaken for the result.

Jules 09 said:
Take the result as the path and you'll do fine.

Otherwise..,
The difference between this and the approach of the natural Dzogpachenpo is greater than that between earth and sky, as it does not possess the essential point—the unceasing flow of clear light, which is non-meditation.
https://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/patrul-rinpoche/tsik-sum-nedek-commentary

krodha wrote:
Taking the “result as the path” is anuttarayogatantra, mahāyoga specifically. It means using a yidam deity in generation stage.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 13th, 2023 at 1:27 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:
Jules 09 said:
It can be recognized in that gap.
As Old Bob mentions above, this is one of the skillful means employed when giving direct introduction

https://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/patrul-rinpoche/tsik-sum-nedek-commentary

krodha wrote:
Patrul Rinpoche is not referring to the actual dharmakāya, per Ju Mipham:
From the perspective of the mode of appearance, the basis itself never ripens as the result, and since that non-ripening is not the actual dharmakāya, since this present basis is not the buddhahood that manifest the ten powers from the mere cause of the dharmakāya, it may be considered that “dharmakāya of the basis” is not "the actual one.”
Dharmakāya cannot be encountered between thoughts. Norbu Rinpoche was critical of the misconception that there was any benefit to investigating the alleged gap between thoughts at all. Even Zen masters like Huineng reject the idea of a gap between thoughts.

Jules 09 said:
Patrul Rinpoche is not referring to the actual dharmakāya
I would suggest that he is referring to the actual dharmakaya: " recognize this and this alone".

krodha wrote:
He is referring to vidyā as an example jñāna [dpe'i ye she's], called the "dharmakāya of the basis." The entire passage you've cited above is strictly concerned with utilizing he de ba to help aspirants recognize that form of mundane vidyā that is used as a foundation for practice. The rhetoric is lofty per usual but is not literal in the sense that you are actualizing the definitive form of dharmakāya during direct introduction. That would be nice, but very unrealistic. Only cig car bas are capable of that. We are mostly rim gyis pas and thod rgal bas, and predominantly the former.

Jules 09 said:
The crucial point here is that rigpa [vidya], which abides as the ground of dharmakāya, is the primordial purity of the path of the yogins, the absolute view of freedom from all elaboration. Until you recognize this one point, then whatever meditation or practice you do, you can never get beyond a fabricated mind-made view and meditation. 

The difference between this and the approach of the natural Dzogpachenpo is greater than that between earth and sky, as it does not possess the essential point—the unceasing flow of clear light, which is non-meditation. So it is most important, first of all, to recognize this and this alone, and: “Recognize this as the pure awareness of dharmakāya”
https://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/patrul-rinpoche/tsik-sum-nedek-commentary

Otherwise, Dzogchen becomes a kind of gradual path...

krodha wrote:
Well, it is gradual from the standpoint of the "mode of appearances" [snang tshul]. The path of atiyoga, thögal, for example, is very gradual, but in a different context it is not gradual at all. Context is king here, and it is impossible to make blanketed statements in that regard.

Jules 09 said:
Which brings us back to the original topic of this thread.

As Old Bob wrote:
So the key point is that the person(s) who Introduces you to Direct Introduction, Instant Presence, is your Dzogchen Teacher.

This is the key quality that a Dzogchen Master must have. All the other qualities are nice to have.
Homage to the masters that have the capacity to point out the Dharmakaya nature of mind, rigpa;
because that alone is most important.

krodha wrote:
Just as long as the basis isn't being mistaken for the result.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 13th, 2023 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:
krodha wrote:
In ati teachings we cannot access luminosity [prabhāsvara] in between thoughts. The ālaya is technically in between thoughts while we practice trekchö below the path of seeing. During that time we work with thought arising [shar grol] and self-liberating [rang grol] within the scope of the aforementioned mundane modality of vidyā.

stong gzugs said:
What happens when your guru shouts phat during a DI? (Or you do the phat semdzin on your own)? You have a space between thoughts and you glimpse vidyā, no?

krodha wrote:
It is unnecessary to glimpse vidyā between thoughts, but some people might need to.

stong gzugs said:
Then once you've glimpsed it in that space between thoughts, you can allow for thoughts to return and recognize them from within the context of vidyā so they self-liberate.

krodha wrote:
If that is necessary.

stong gzugs said:
I don't see why there is anything fundamentally different about using the naturally occurring gap as some in the Thai Forest tradition suggest.

krodha wrote:
I’m not sure. I can’t say I’m really interested or concerned what Thai forest practitioners have to say about this topic.
If a practitioner truly actualizes prabhāsvara then thought does not arise, and is known to have never arisen in the first place [ye grol]. This nullifies even the notion of a gap between thoughts.

stong gzugs said:
I think the Thai Forest masters say something similar about what happens when citta itself stops. I don't know their practices as well as I'd like, but oftentimes when I read something from the Theravadins that I really resonate with, and look up the teacher, they are from the Thai Forest tradition.

krodha wrote:
My experience with Thai forest is that it is not a monolith and you tend to get a variety of views that reflect a variety of levels of realization amongst their ajahns. There are a small handful who are the real deal, and many, even high profile, who just have a modest degree of insight. Overall none of it is really on my radar.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 12th, 2023 at 1:17 PM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:
krodha wrote:
The person I replied to earlier was emphasizing the gaps between thought, which would be cultivating gnas pa or stillness, rendering the meditation just traditional śamatha. If they instead advocated for incorporating the movement [gyu ba] of thought, then the meditation would begin to approach the "view" that we apply in practicing ati as trekchö below the path of seeing.

stong gzugs said:
Like Kai Lord mentioned earlier when mentioning the controversies around bhavanga, some Theravadins practice roughly what you describe as the view of trekchö, as they incorporate an underlying stillness with movement of thought and relate this to liberating knowledge. Certain commentaries on the https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an01/an01.049.than.html describe how the luminosity of mind is experienced between thoughts in the bhavanga state. Resting in this bhavanga state, according to Ajahn Lee (of the Thai Forest tradition), still allows for thoughts to arise and self-liberate on their own. It's not exactly the same thing as trekchö, but it's respectably close IMO.

Here's Thanissaro Bhikkhu's explanation: The importance of becoming is evident from the role it plays in the four noble truths, particularly in the second: Suffering and stress are caused by any form of craving that leads to becoming. Thus the end of suffering must involve the end of becoming. The central paradox of becoming is also evident in the second noble truth, where one of the three forms of craving leading to becoming is craving for non-becoming—the ending of what has come to be. This poses a practical challenge for any attempt to put an end to becoming. Many writers have tried to resolve this paradox by defining non-becoming in such a way that the desire for Unbinding (nibbana) would not fall into that category. However, the Buddha himself taught a strategic resolution to this paradox, in which the four noble truth—the path to the end of suffering—involves creating a type of becoming where the mind is so steady and alert that it can simply allow what has come into being to pass away of its own accord, thus avoiding the twin dangers of craving for becoming or for non-becoming.
And here's the instruction of Ajahn Lee that Thanissaro was explaining.
Ajahn Lee said:
ONCE I HAD MADE UP MY MIND to stay, the Somdet asked me to come and teach him meditation every day. I had him practice anapanasati—keeping the breath in mind. We talked about a number of things while he sat in meditation.

One day he said, ‘I never dreamed that sitting in samadhi would be so beneficial, but there’s one thing that has me bothered. To make the mind still and bring it down to its basic resting level (bhavanga): Isn’t this the essence of becoming and birth?’

‘That’s what samadhi is,’ I told him, ‘becoming and birth.’

‘But the Dhamma we’re taught to practice is for the sake of doing away with becoming and birth. So what are we doing giving rise to more becoming and birth?’

‘If you don’t make the mind take on becoming, it won’t give rise to knowledge, because knowledge has to come from becoming if it’s going to do away with becoming. This is becoming on a small scale—uppatika bhava—which lasts for a single mental moment. The same holds true with birth. To make the mind still so that samadhi arises for a long mental moment is birth. Say we sit in concentration for a long time until the mind gives rise to the five factors of jhana: That’s birth. If you don’t do this with your mind, it won’t give rise to any knowledge of its own. And when knowledge can’t arise, how will you be able to let go of ignorance? It’d be very hard.

‘As I see it,’ I went on, ‘most students of the Dhamma really misconstrue things. Whatever comes springing up, they try to cut it down and wipe it out. To me, this seems wrong. It’s like people who eat eggs. Some people don’t know what a chicken is like: This is ignorance. As soon as they get hold of an egg, they crack it open and eat it. But say they know how to incubate eggs. They get ten eggs, eat five of them, and incubate the rest. While the eggs are incubating, that’s “becoming.” When the baby chicks come out of their shells, that’s “birth.” If all five chicks survive, then as the years pass it seems to me that the person who once had to buy eggs will start benefiting from his chickens. He’ll have eggs to eat without having to pay for them. And if he has more than he can eat, he can set himself up in business, selling them. In the end he’ll be able to release himself from poverty.

‘So it is with practicing samadhi: If you’re going to release yourself from becoming, you first have to go live in becoming. If you’re going to release yourself from birth, you’ll have to know all about your own birth.’

krodha wrote:
Perhaps it is similar, I cannot tell. The chicken and egg talk is somewhat cryptic, but to each their own.

In ati teachings we cannot access luminosity [prabhāsvara] in between thoughts. The ālaya is technically in between thoughts while we practice trekchö below the path of seeing. During that time we work with thought arising [shar grol] and self-liberating [rang grol] within the scope of the aforementioned mundane modality of vidyā.

If a practitioner truly actualizes prabhāsvara then thought does not arise, and is known to have never arisen in the first place [ye grol]. This nullifies even the notion of a gap between thoughts.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 12th, 2023 at 8:58 AM
Title: Re: Dalai Lama kisses boy on his lips and asks him to suck his tongue
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Seeming more and more like a media hit job to me, Idk.

krodha wrote:
No doubt. Someone on reddit familiar with propaganda tactics said that the torrent of media coverage and the ubiquitous format of slander all sharing the same talking points (that were coming from new accounts) were telltale hallmarks of an orchestrated smear campaign.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 12th, 2023 at 6:46 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:
Jules 09 said:
Have you read the previous posts in this thread?

krodha wrote:
Yes.
Jules 09 said:
If yes, are you categorizing The First Vital Point of Garab Dorje as "just śamatha"?

krodha wrote:
One would not categorize the first "vital point" as śamatha. The first vital point is identifying vidyā. That being said, whether the particular practitioner in question's practice involves (or resembles) śamatha, after vidyā has been identified, will then be contingent on the ability of that practitioner.

Typically most ati practitioners are introduced to a modality of vidyā that is essentially like an example jñāna [dpe'i ye she's], and the trekchö that is performed using that example jñāna is really just a glorified or advanced form of śamatha that deviates from traditional śamatha in the sense that it cultivates the inseparability of stillness, movement and vidyā, as opposed to traditional śamatha, which only cultivates stillness [gnas pa].

The person I replied to earlier was emphasizing the gaps between thought, which would be cultivating gnas pa or stillness, rendering the meditation just traditional śamatha. If they instead advocated for incorporating the movement [gyu ba] of thought, then the meditation would begin to approach the "view" that we apply in practicing ati as trekchö below the path of seeing.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 11th, 2023 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: Dalai Lama kisses boy on his lips and asks him to suck his tongue
Content:
krodha wrote:
Chinese propagandists are astroturfing and shilling the living hell out of these posts on other forums, Reddit especially. Comes off as very intentional and perhaps even deliberate.

They surely wanted an emotional reaction from the West, and they’re getting it.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 9th, 2023 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:
Lingpupa said:
But in THAT sense, I think it is not unreasonable to talk about trying to rest in or recognize the gap between two thoughts, as I have heard at least one of my main teachers say. Those thoughts may not be the same as theoretically posited "mind moments", of course, but I think I (or we?) are convinced that such mind moments do not deserve much attention.

Malcolm said:
If you identify a gap, your meditation has a conceptual reference, and you will be further from the dharmakaya than heaven is from earth,

Lingpupa said:
It's not a technique I use, but in any case I'm not talking about such rarefied ideas as the dharmakaya. It's just an everyday meditation technique, described in everyday language.

krodha wrote:
It’s just śamatha.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 7th, 2023 at 10:37 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:
krodha wrote:
Patrul Rinpoche is not referring to the actual dharmakāya, per Ju Mipham:
From the perspective of the mode of appearance, the basis itself never ripens as the result, and since that non-ripening is not the actual dharmakāya, since this present basis is not the buddhahood that manifest the ten powers from the mere cause of the dharmakāya, it may be considered that “dharmakāya of the basis” is not "the actual one.”
Dharmakāya cannot be encountered between thoughts. Norbu Rinpoche was critical of the misconception that there was any benefit to investigating the alleged gap between thoughts at all. Even Zen masters like Huineng reject the idea of a gap between thoughts.

nyamlae said:
That's a great quote, thanks for sharing. What text is it from?

krodha wrote:
I’m not sure. It is Malcolm’s translation.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 7th, 2023 at 4:50 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:
Jules 09 said:
It can be recognized in that gap.
As Old Bob mentions above, this is one of the skillful means employed when giving direct introduction
To free yourself from the ‘cocoon’ of attachment-to-experience, lay bare the all-penetrating rigpa and reveal explicitly its true state, “Suddenly let out a mind-shattering phaṭ!”,

Since it is vital to cut through the flow of arising thoughts, and destroy meditation made by the mind, the sound ‘phaṭ!’ should be fierce, forceful and abrupt: “Fierce, forceful, and abrupt. How amazing (emaho)!”

At this moment, you are free from all fixed notions of what mind might be, and liberation itself is actualized: “There is nothing there: transfixed in wonder,”

In that state of dharmakāya, devoid of any reference or reliance whatsoever, all-penetrating, naked awareness dwells, just as it is, as the wisdom that transcends the mind,  and so:
 “Struck by wonder (hedawa), and yet all is transparently clear (zang tal lé)”.

This all-penetrating, unimpeded awareness is the key point of inexpressible and naturally inherent wisdom, beyond all extremes such as rising and ceasing, existing and non-existing, and so beyond words and out of reach of mental enquiry. “Fresh, pure and sudden, so beyond description:”

The crucial point here is that rigpa, which abides as the ground of dharmakāya, is the primordial purity of the path of the yogins, the absolute view of freedom from all elaboration. Until you recognize this one point, then whatever meditation or practice you do, you can never get beyond a fabricated mind-made view and meditation. 

The difference between this and the approach of the natural Dzogpachenpo is greater than that between earth and sky, as it does not possess the essential point—the unceasing flow of clear light, which is non-meditation. So it is most important, first of all, to recognize this and this alone, and: “Recognize this as the pure awareness of dharmakāya”.
https://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/patrul-rinpoche/tsik-sum-nedek-commentary

krodha wrote:
Patrul Rinpoche is not referring to the actual dharmakāya, per Ju Mipham:
From the perspective of the mode of appearance, the basis itself never ripens as the result, and since that non-ripening is not the actual dharmakāya, since this present basis is not the buddhahood that manifest the ten powers from the mere cause of the dharmakāya, it may be considered that “dharmakāya of the basis” is not "the actual one.”
Dharmakāya cannot be encountered between thoughts. Norbu Rinpoche was critical of the misconception that there was any benefit to investigating the alleged gap between thoughts at all. Even Zen masters like Huineng reject the idea of a gap between thoughts.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 6th, 2023 at 4:32 AM
Title: Re: Qualifications of a Dzogchen Master
Content:
Jules 09 said:
Yes, the hetawa moment of shock breaks the continuous linking of one thought to the next, thus creating a gap in which one's intrinsic nature, the sugatagharba, re-cognizes itself.

krodha wrote:
If you are lucky. Typically one just recognizes a mundane form of vidyā that is then utilized as a foundation for practice.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, January 22nd, 2023 at 5:46 AM
Title: Re: In Madhyamaka is everything empty, without exception? Or is there something that exists?
Content:
Dgj said:
For example, I have read that suchness exists, despite everything else being empty.

krodha wrote:
“Suchness” is a fancy way of describing “seeing the way things really are,” or “the actual way of things.” It is just a synonym for emptiness.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2023 at 6:50 AM
Title: Re: Advaita Vedanta and Dzogchen
Content:
stong gzugs said:
Thanks, fckw. Yeah, that was in line with what I was thinking, and I've definitely seen that set of symptoms. A group of researchers including Willoughby Britton are exploring it and other dangers of serious meditation now. There's a fine line between realizing non-self and depersonalization.

krodha wrote:
Realizing anātman and depersonalization are worlds apart. Really the furthest from a “fine line.”


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2023 at 2:21 AM
Title: Re: Natural State and the individual state
Content:
James Sealy said:
All in all we never can, with Madyamika emptiness, have a correct understanding of   Dzogchen .
Dzogchen is based on an awareness and Madyamika on dualistic reasoning based on a non self and non here and there, which can go into absurdness, or misunderstood, can easily end into nihilism

krodha wrote:
This really is not true at all. Dzogchen and Madhyamaka are divergent in method, but their fundamental view and the import of that view are essentially identical.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2023 at 7:26 AM
Title: Re: Natural State and the individual state
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
All Lopon appears to be saying is pointing out what has been pointed out many times on DW, that is that if Buddha Nature was shared, one being attaining Buddhahood would make all beings obtain it, but of course it does not work that way.

I’ve also heard more than one Bönpo teacher express admiration for Madhymaka in different contexts, so the idea that this statement is somehow anti-Madhymaka, advocating Shentong specifically or something seems to have little basis in its content.

krodha wrote:
Agreed. Also, Jean-Luc Achard said on his forum many years ago that Lopön Tenzin Namdak is a proponent of Prasangika Madhyamaka. He would be the one to know.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2023 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: Natural State and the individual state
Content:
James Sealy said:
Recently there was a discussion about that boring "self" and seen by myself, as more an identity than a "self".

Well I want to explain that further, for a better understanding.
That is possible because the Bön Yongdzin Rinpoche gives here a very clear explanation.
This explanation stems from the Dringpo Sorzhag / The pith instructions of the Zhang Zhung Nyam Gyud Masters.

=======================


Question:
The question is about the fact that you said this morning that everyone's Natural State is exactly the same, that the quality is exactly the same, yet each one of us still has their own individual State. It seems that we are keeping some kind of individuality, and so there is a trace of Ignorance which remains because there is something distinct which seems to remain even after realization. So could you clarify this point?


The Bön Yongdzin Rinpoche
Answer:
Yes. The Teachings themselves very often say Thigle Nyagchig, Single Point or Unique Nature: Clarity (and) Unification are not separate; it is always saying things like that.

That means the each individual being has individual mind. Nature is very deeply connected wherever there is mind - the mind is like water and Nature is like wetness. Or the mind is like fire and Nature is like heat; we cannot separate them.

Therefore when we are explaining Nature we are explaining the Nature of Mind. Mind is completely individual, we believe that even insects, fish and chickens are all beings. Nobody has given them to us as food, they are not the same as vegetables; fish and flowers are not the same at all. Flowers are not beings but fish are definitely beings. Wherever there is mind there is Nature, and the Dzogchen View explains about Nature, Dzogchen Nature.

Nature cannot be created or changed; it is naturally pure, clear, unified and inseparable. As I explained this morning, it doesn't matter whether you realize Nature or not, Nature is always the same.

When Dharmakaya or someone has achieved Buddhahood, his Nature didn't change at all; he didn't change anything. It is just that the practitioner or whoever realized Nature and then became more and more deeply familiar with it and stable. That can purify all defilements and obscuration, everything.

As you go deeper and deeper you realize that no substance can remain, no traces can be kept. That is why it is possible to purify all defilements and negative actions. It is very clear that if one person practises and achieves Buddhahood, it is only for himself, not for the rest of the sentient beings; it is not that way at all. That shows us.

Usually, the Teachings give a general explanation but if a particular person practises and realizes, it is he himself who achieves (Buddhahood), no-one else.

Thousands of Buddhas exist. Maybe you can make a mistake. One Buddha emanated thousands of Buddhas, but that is just one Buddha; their Nature is one. Each individual Buddha has only one Nature and, they are separate emanations; there are many, many thousands of different ones, some of them are Peaceful while some of them are Wrathful according to what is needed, according to the time and circumstances. So don't be mistaken.

Buddha can mean general or private (individual) - like humans, like us, you see. We can generally explain that a human has one head, two eyes, two ears, a nose, two legs, hands and so on, and this is all general. Then privately, someone has a beard, someone has a long beard, someone has no beard - sa it is similar. There are thousands of Buddhas and that can mean the thousands of emanations of one Buddha or thousands of separate Buddhas. There are a lot of separate Buddhas and also one Buddha with one Nature can emanate thousands of Buddhas and (they can show you) whatever you want to know or question. If you want to know the real Buddha, we are explaining Basic Buddha which each individual here has.

Everybody has this Base of Buddha, and if you try and practise it purifies all defilements and obscuration so you yourself can achieve Buddhahood.

That is one Buddha. Then you can emanate thousands or millions of Buddhas if it is necessary, and they are all your Buddhas, not different separate Buddhas. We explain that there are many Buddhas - sometimes (they manifest) one, sometimes more, it depends on the context, on what you want to know.

krodha wrote:
Lopön Tenzin Namdak is just explaining that the nature of mind is a generic characteristic [samanyalakṣana]. This is not really related to selves or identities beyond acknowledging that persons, places and things have conventional selfhoods and identities.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 26th, 2022 at 6:54 AM
Title: Re: Yeshi’s back
Content:
jet.urgyen said:
c'mon guys, cheer up a bit.

krodha wrote:
Perhaps you aren’t aware of much of what’s been going on behind the scenes for the DC the past few years.

Simply cheering up might not cut it. Time will tell.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, December 24th, 2022 at 2:51 PM
Title: Re: Yeshi’s back
Content:
laowhining said:
I’m very excited to see what comes of this.

As an aside, does anyone else find the capitalizing of pronouns very bizarre?

krodha wrote:
Culty for sure.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2022 at 4:19 AM
Title: Re: Advaita Vedanta and Dzogchen
Content:
Kai lord said:
A lot of misunderstanding could have been avoided if this thread is renamed to "Advaita Vedanta and Bon Dzogchen "

Since Buddhist Dzogchen is nowhere compatible to Advaita Vedanta and someone says that his knowledge of Bon Dzogchen shows otherwise. Then good..... as it can be easily deduced from there that Bon Dzogchen is not the same as Buddhist Dzogchen and should be treated separately and given different treatment Instead of having groups of people talking pass each other because they think both Dzogchen is the same deal.

PeterC said:
It isn’t different.  There are areas where one tradition oe the other has more or less detailed explanations, but they’re not fundamentally different.

James Sealy said:
I can fully agree to that.

Bön Dzogchen is not different from Nyingma Dzogchen, because Samantabhdra = Kuntu Zangpo.
The difference is made by persons who do not understand, some very difficult to understand topics in Dzogchen.
That is understandable and here no blame or excuse needed , because Dzogchen is not easy to understand, with the mind of karma.

So we have Longde, Semsde and Mengagde, and accordingly Dzogchenpas can understand Dzogchen better.
For me personal counts the practice more than the theoretical understanding about Bön Dzogchen.
But i do not deny, that a certain foundation of knowing, with the karma mind or consciousness mind, is also needed.

It is then, that dwelling in the Trekchöd state together with the self-emergent visions of Thodgal, there is no self as seen or studied with the consciousness mind of karma.

Well if we emancipate this state then that is the target of "knowing" Dzogchen as such.
That state is known in Bön Dzogchen as the Dharmakaya aspect, but performed with a body of illusion.
It means this body has some features , with which we can get into that certain Dharmakaya state, and these entities are inherent present and do not come from outside. So this body is the foundation to get emancipated, and the best in the 6 realms of illusion.

That is then still seen on the more karmic side of the body / mind, and partly pure and not.
The absolute state, if we would abide for 24/7 in that state then this is like it is explained by the Masters.

So it is difficult to approach Dzogchen with reasoning about it is this and that, done with the karma mind.

Therefore, i fully agree with the ultimate state or the Dzogpa chenpo state, which is never based on a self, eternal non-duality, an identity and more of that dualistic stuff.

But in Bön Dzogchen we also know that in the base is Samsara and Nirvana present.
So we are teached not to follow visions as the remedy of the never ending "movie" stemming out of the base.
Well not following,  Bönpo´s practice then when we abide in the "temporal" Dharmakaya status, during Dzogchen "meditation".

Here one can see that according "our"practice , Dzogchen can be easier explained , then when we do it pure academical.
But text and practice are important, no doubt about it.

All in all, Samantabhadra and Kuntu Zangpo, the Natural State, Trekchöd and Thodgal, the indivisible Tri Kaya´s, Longde, Semsde and Mengagde, Rainbow Body, the shrunken Body, the Chikai Bardo , the inherent dwelling entity in this karma body with the kati channel and energy etc etc.that all is known in Bön Dzogchen as well Nyingma Dzogchen.

BUT some persons have a certain approach to Dzogchen , because Longde , Semsde and Mengagde.
Bön has no Longde but is more Mengagde.

Bön has 4 unbroken Dzogchen lineages, so Bön has a rich Dzogchen history.

As a last my interpretations are always based on the teachings from the most senior Bön Yongdzin Rinpoche. Lopon la, is the head Master of all teachers and lama´s in Bön.

To understand my contributions, means to know the complete related Bön Dzogchen teachings, and here we also will meet easy,  the misunderstandings, like we have seen.

krodha wrote:
Are you just underhandedly attempting to assert the Bön posits some sort of über self in a very verbose way? Can’t tell what you’re trying to get at.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2022 at 7:40 AM
Title: Re: Advaita Vedanta and Dzogchen
Content:
fckw said:
Actually, if you study what Gautama Buddha said, there are some passages where he did not explicitly reject the idea of a self, but rather the question whether there is or is not a self based on the argument that the whole discussion around the topic is simply not helpful.

It is fascinating how many Buddhists heavily make use of the argument of no-self to demonstrate that they are "completely different" from Vedantins, hence ignoring those passages.

This article is quite interesting regarding the debate: https://tricycle.org/magazine/there-no-self/

krodha wrote:
This is a novel view of Thanissaro Bikkhu. He is the only person who promulgates it, and then Theravadins love to parrot him. It’s nonsense.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 16th, 2022 at 6:40 AM
Title: Re: Rtog pa - subtle cognition?
Content:


Jules 09 said:
Sems thinks. Rigpa doesn't think. 
Is it clear ?

krodha wrote:
Rigpa is present even in sems. It is called gnas gyu shes pa, the knower of stillness and movement.

You have an excessively narrow definition of rigpa. I’m not even sure how one can practice Dzogchen with such a narrow definition.

For you, rigpa is strictly the prajñā of an ārya... but there are stages below the path of seeing, and you’re completely neglecting how rigpa expresses itself in those contexts.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 16th, 2022 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: Rtog pa - subtle cognition?
Content:





Jules 09 said:
Teacher's response: "Those are thoughts!" Whack !!

krodha wrote:
Time to find a new teacher.

Jules 09 said:
Dzogchen is about stepping out of the box.

krodha wrote:
Not sure who told you this but, not the best advice if you think that means you are exempt from requiring proper instructions or clarification on your understanding (which is in dire need of clarification).


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 16th, 2022 at 3:14 AM
Title: Re: Rtog pa - subtle cognition?
Content:
Jules 09 said:
If I were to go to my teacher and say that there is conceptual thinking during authentic rigpa, and that is how to train, I would get a verbal slap in the face with a slipper. I know that because it has happened many times already.

krodha wrote:
This would be falsely misrepresenting people’s advice in this thread.

Instead you would ask your teacher if in the context of the view, is self-liberation applied to thoughts and phenomena so that the practitioner can recognize rigpa in its “authentic” expression as so so rang gyi rig pa'i ye shes.

They would confirm that is indeed the case.

Jules 09 said:
is self-liberation applied to thoughts and phenomena so that the practitioner can recognize rigpa in its “authentic” expression as so so rang gyi rig pa'i ye shes.
Teacher's response: "Those are thoughts!" Whack !!

krodha wrote:
Time to find a new teacher.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 16th, 2022 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: Rtog pa - subtle cognition?
Content:
Jules 09 said:
If I were to go to my teacher and say that there is conceptual thinking during authentic rigpa, and that is how to train, I would get a verbal slap in the face with a slipper. I know that because it has happened many times already.

krodha wrote:
This would be falsely misrepresenting people’s advice in this thread.

Instead you would ask your teacher if in the context of the view, is self-liberation applied to thoughts and phenomena so that the practitioner can recognize rigpa in its “authentic” expression as so so rang gyi rig pa'i ye shes.

They would confirm that is indeed the case.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, December 15th, 2022 at 7:42 AM
Title: Re: Rtog pa - subtle cognition?
Content:



Jules 09 said:
It is not possible to rest in rigpa and watch or "allow" thoughts to liberate themselves. Thoughts arise in marigpa, not rigpa.
In rigpa, there is no experience of an agent who would "allow" or not allow a thought to liberate itself.

krodha wrote:
Rigpa is not a one-size-fits-all type of thing. It is more like a spectrum.

There are different modalities of rigpa. From preliminary and coarse, to the advanced and most refined.

In the beginning, if you don’t apply self-liberation with respect to thoughts and so on while resting in that preliminary modality of rigpa, then your rigpa will not be refined so to speak, so that you begin to encounter the other modalities you are posting quotes about (rigpa equivalent to sherab and so on. You need to walk before you run).

Jules 09 said:
Rigpa, Buddha-nature, tries to recognize itself in a manner that accords with the different needs of individual sentient beings.
I guess we can agree on that.


krodha wrote:
For all sentient beings, their rigpa is expressed as marigpa. You always start there, unless you’re the rarest of rare chigcharwa.

Rigpa is not necessarily tathāgatagarbha or buddha nature. Rigpa can have knowledge of tathāgatagarbha, or lack that knowledge. Rigpa is like a crystal ball, it will appear in different ways according with conditions.

For example, the rigpa of sentient beings is the vijñāna skandha. We all begin there. You have to train your rigpa by familiarizing with the view, which many people here have attempted to communicate in this thread. You aren’t immune or exempt from this.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, December 15th, 2022 at 5:06 AM
Title: Re: Rtog pa - subtle cognition?
Content:



Jules 09 said:
It is not possible to rest in rigpa and watch or "allow" thoughts to liberate themselves. Thoughts arise in marigpa, not rigpa.
In rigpa, there is no experience of an agent who would "allow" or not allow a thought to liberate itself.

krodha wrote:
Rigpa is not a one-size-fits-all type of thing. It is more like a spectrum.

There are different modalities of rigpa. From preliminary and coarse, to the advanced and most refined.

In the beginning, if you don’t apply self-liberation with respect to thoughts and so on while resting in that preliminary modality of rigpa, then your rigpa will not be refined so to speak, so that you begin to encounter the other modalities you are posting quotes about (rigpa equivalent to sherab and so on. You need to walk before you run).


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 22nd, 2022 at 6:53 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:


muni said:
Thank you all for yours conversation. Then there is no trace of division.
Since no thing/being is out of emptiness, the base. All inclusive all embracing, by the grace of emptiness all is possible.

"The view is like the bright sky:
Free from all that is high or low, divided or partial,
Neither wide nor narrow, it is beyond attempts to verbalize it—
Apply the tool of insightful understanding straight away." Longchenpa.

"Dodurupchen says that all phenomena/beings are quite definitely such that they arise as rigpa energy or rigpa display.  From the point of view of the new schools of tantra (sarma), everything that appears arises as the display of great bliss, and the display of emptiness. In the terminology of Dzogchen whatever manifests arises as the display of rigpa, and that is certain. So the agent responsible for all of this as well as the space and ground for it all, is the single state of Clear Light. Everything, in fact , is the display or array of Clear Light." Dalai Lama

As gratitude for clarification of Dharmata and Dharmadhatu*!

Malcolm said:
That luminosity is a unique, individual continuum. It’s not transpersonal.

muni said:
That is dharmata.
There is the dharmadatu as the quote and there is dharmata. As I made it not clear,  it is written in the post by Jules., a teaching by Namkai Norbu Rinpoche.

krodha wrote:
Dharmadhātu is essentially just a term for the emptiness of all phenomena.

Whereas in common Mahāyāna, dharmatā is the emptiness of a specific entity. This is the only difference.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 14th, 2022 at 8:44 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:


stong gzugs said:
Non-arising is realized even through analytical meditation a la Nagarjuna. It certainly isn't the kind of unification experience that ChNN is describing in the above quote.

krodha wrote:
Non-arising is the key realization in all of these teachings, Dzogchen is no exception.

The Rig pa rang shar:

When the nonarising nature of phenomena is realized, that is buddhahood and nothing else. All phenomena are delusions of the mind. The mind is the one gathering all traces. Phenomena are free from all clinging traces. [139a] Through confidence that there is no buddhahood in the mind, that person who has seen the view for themselves is said to have been ultimately liberated without going anywhere.

Further, on this topic of vijñāna and jñāna, non-arising [anutpāda] is again, a key factor as explained in the Ārya-akṣayamati-nirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra which dedicates a section to comparing and contrasting vijñāna and jñāna, concluding with the following:

Furthermore, abiding in arising and perishing is vijñāna [rnam shes]. Abiding in nonarising and non-perishing is jñāna [ye shes]. This is "relying on jñāna and not relying on vijñāna" [which is the fourth of the "four reliances"].

Natan said:
But this will not be a non arising by way if Madhyamaka analysis.

krodha wrote:
Never asserted it was.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, November 12th, 2022 at 6:31 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:


stong gzugs said:
Non-arising is realized even through analytical meditation a la Nagarjuna. It certainly isn't the kind of unification experience that ChNN is describing in the above quote.

krodha wrote:
Non-arising is the key realization in all of these teachings, Dzogchen is no exception.

The Rig pa rang shar:

When the nonarising nature of phenomena is realized, that is buddhahood and nothing else. All phenomena are delusions of the mind. The mind is the one gathering all traces. Phenomena are free from all clinging traces. [139a] Through confidence that there is no buddhahood in the mind, that person who has seen the view for themselves is said to have been ultimately liberated without going anywhere.

Further, on this topic of vijñāna and jñāna, non-arising [anutpāda] is again, a key factor as explained in the Ārya-akṣayamati-nirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra which dedicates a section to comparing and contrasting vijñāna and jñāna, concluding with the following:

Furthermore, abiding in arising and perishing is vijñāna [rnam shes]. Abiding in nonarising and non-perishing is jñāna [ye shes]. This is "relying on jñāna and not relying on vijñāna" [which is the fourth of the "four reliances"].


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, November 12th, 2022 at 3:49 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
Matt J said:
That is not so difficult--- based on what ChNNR is stating, it is just a matter of an individual reaching an expanded state of consciousness. Since this can include other mindstreams, in theory a Buddha that achieves some sort of universal omniscience would be a sentient being who achieved a very expanded state of knowledge.

stong gzugs said:
Are you using consciousness in an everyday or technical way here? If it's the latter, I don't think that a person's consciousness (shes pa/vijñāna) can expand out to encompass others. It's usually wisdom (ye she/jnana) that is tied to the Buddhas omniscience.

And this doesn't really answer the question, which is that if you think that each individual has their own separate basis, what is the matrix/space within which an individual is "expanding" to reach other individuals? It has to be the matrix of buddha-nature which would, again, imply a transpersonal matrix that connects and unifies all reality, and which is fractally or holographically reflected in the heart of all sentient beings (like how Tenzin Wangyal interprets sugatagarbha/dharmakaya), such that this matrix provides a way for individuals to expand beyond their individual confines to reach others.

krodha wrote:
They don’t “expand,” they simply realize non-arising.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, November 12th, 2022 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:


Natan said:
Nope. That's not how it works. Aí ai

krodha wrote:
I clarified that “analysis” simply means a yogi’s scrutiny of samsara in whatever form. For example, nirvana being defined as “analytical cessation” [pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha] this does not mean nirvana results from literal scientific style analysis.

That is how it works.

Otherwise, regarding the cellular topic, if you’re some sort of physicalist who is asserting that cells can withstand scrutiny, that would be an interesting deviation from the entire history of these teachings. I’m not sure how novel Guru Natan is planning on getting.

Natan said:
Here's what your master says, "We don't reject outer objects in Dzogchen, which, if you were more studied in the subject, you would understand already. "

krodha wrote:
Outer objects are not rejected conventionally, but the conventional cannot withstand scrutiny, the same goes for Dzogchen. Objects are not actually real.

Natan said:
Dzogchen has nothing to do with analysis, really.

krodha wrote:
No one asserted it does. You’re being too literal.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 11th, 2022 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: Rigpa is conditioned?
Content:
Luren said:
Hello everyone.

I realized that Dzogchen is the best choice for me and best suits the way of western life.
I want to experience life fully, not to renounce it as is the case with some other forms of spirituality.

However, I was a bit concerned about an interview I came across recently - in this interview, Delson Armstrong, very advanced meditation practitioner, claims that Rigpa is a conditioned state and not the pinnacle of human spiritual abilities.

At the same time, it seems to me that he makes the Dzogchen teachings a little shallower.

What is your opinion on this?

The passage in question is: 12:50 - 15:11


krodha wrote:
Rigpa has conditioned and unconditioned modalities, but this guy is just making stuff up in terms of asserting that rigpa in total is subordinate to whatever he’s promoting as superior.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 11th, 2022 at 12:28 PM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:


Natan said:
You think ignorance is removed by analysis of when we are naming things and awakening is no longer using names?

krodha wrote:
Never said that at any point in this discussion.

Natan said:
Like before we knew there were cells in the body there were no cells and they arose because we stupidly saw them with a microscope and named them cells? But then if we analyze what a cell is it ceases to exist? It's so silly...

krodha wrote:
Not sure what you’re talking about.

“Analysis” in this context refers to using whatever means to realize that dharmas are non-arisen.

If a cell was the subject of that insight, then indeed bhavanirodha or the cessation of existence would certainly be known through that realization. But we don’t have to use phenomena on a cellular level, there is no need. The macroscopic level of everyday persons, places and things works just fine.

Natan said:
Nope. That's not how it works. Aí ai

krodha wrote:
I clarified that “analysis” simply means a yogi’s scrutiny of samsara in whatever form. For example, nirvana being defined as “analytical cessation” [pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha] this does not mean nirvana results from literal scientific style analysis.

That is how it works.

Otherwise, regarding the cellular topic, if you’re some sort of physicalist who is asserting that cells can withstand scrutiny, that would be an interesting deviation from the entire history of these teachings. I’m not sure how novel Guru Natan is planning on getting.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 11th, 2022 at 4:06 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:



Natan said:
All these quotes stand for is that when anything is analysed nothing fundamental is ever found.

krodha wrote:
Yes, a dharma only appears to be real if it is not investigated. If scrutinized, no dharma can withstand scrutiny because the basis of designation does not contain or produce the entity that is imputed onto it, and therefore the entity is nothing more than an imputation. A nominal inference.

Natan said:
But this is about Dzogchen tantras and how the universe and it's Buddha's, gods and men arose from nothing.

krodha wrote:
These dharmas only appear to arise because of ignorance and delusion. Remove ignorance and delusion and you see that nothing ever arose to begin with. Meaning all dharmas are merely nominal in nature.

Natan said:
Then, we could have been Buddhas if raised by wolves? So before you know what a word is, like when you're a wolf, what name are you giving the connate ignorance? And why are there even wolves?

And don't you feel it's counterintuitive and asinine to believe the universe and all of life was caused by a word? The word for connate ignorance? Who their right mind would make such an idiotic claim with a straight face? Could it be names are really a result of millions of years of evolution? And no intelligent yogi would ever assume the universe is made.of words?

krodha wrote:
The connate ignorance is the failure to recognize that appearances are your own display, and then the imputing ignorance is where the ālaya forms and all of the deluded conventional diversity we experience is concretized.

The universe only appears real because of our delusion.

Natan said:
You think ignorance is removed by analysis of when we are naming things and awakening is no longer using names?

krodha wrote:
Never said that at any point in this discussion.

Natan said:
Like before we knew there were cells in the body there were no cells and they arose because we stupidly saw them with a microscope and named them cells? But then if we analyze what a cell is it ceases to exist? It's so silly...

krodha wrote:
Not sure what you’re talking about.

“Analysis” in this context refers to using whatever means to realize that dharmas are non-arisen.

If a cell was the subject of that insight, then indeed bhavanirodha or the cessation of existence would certainly be known through that realization. But we don’t have to use phenomena on a cellular level, there is no need. The macroscopic level of everyday persons, places and things works just fine.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 10th, 2022 at 9:11 PM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
Natan said:
There's a trend that appears in your writings in which everything in Dharma... all dharmas, dharmas of samsara and dharmas of the path all boil down to seeing them as merely nominal. It is as if one can just give up names and be a nirmanakaya. Children raised by packs of wild animals come to mind. Your take strikes me as nihilistic.

krodha wrote:
I realize you directed this question at Malcolm, but it is an interesting topic. If dharmas were anything more than nominal in nature they would be able to withstand keen scrutiny.

Ju Mipham:

Conventional truth is not ultimately real [bden par grub pa] because it is not able to withstand reasoned analysis.

Longchenpa:

If one analyses, what does not bear analysis is relative.

Rongzom states that convention:

is satisfactory when not investigated; but if investigated cannot bear the weight of reasoning.

Dharmas are only inferred via imputation, which means they are completely nominal in nature. A mere designation that infers the existence of something that isn’t really there. Obviously the connate ignorance underlies this process, but these levels of ignorance and delusion reify one another.


.

Natan said:
All these quotes stand for is that when anything is analysed nothing fundamental is ever found.

krodha wrote:
Yes, a dharma only appears to be real if it is not investigated. If scrutinized, no dharma can withstand scrutiny because the basis of designation does not contain or produce the entity that is imputed onto it, and therefore the entity is nothing more than an imputation. A nominal inference.

Natan said:
But this is about Dzogchen tantras and how the universe and it's Buddha's, gods and men arose from nothing.

krodha wrote:
These dharmas only appear to arise because of ignorance and delusion. Remove ignorance and delusion and you see that nothing ever arose to begin with. Meaning all dharmas are merely nominal in nature.

Natan said:
Then, we could have been Buddhas if raised by wolves? So before you know what a word is, like when you're a wolf, what name are you giving the connate ignorance? And why are there even wolves?

And don't you feel it's counterintuitive and asinine to believe the universe and all of life was caused by a word? The word for connate ignorance? Who their right mind would make such an idiotic claim with a straight face? Could it be names are really a result of millions of years of evolution? And no intelligent yogi would ever assume the universe is made.of words?

krodha wrote:
The connate ignorance is the failure to recognize that appearances are your own display, and then the imputing ignorance is where the ālaya forms and all of the deluded conventional diversity we experience is concretized.

The universe only appears real because of our delusion.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 10th, 2022 at 6:58 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
Natan said:
There's a trend that appears in your writings in which everything in Dharma... all dharmas, dharmas of samsara and dharmas of the path all boil down to seeing them as merely nominal. It is as if one can just give up names and be a nirmanakaya. Children raised by packs of wild animals come to mind. Your take strikes me as nihilistic.

krodha wrote:
I realize you directed this question at Malcolm, but it is an interesting topic. If dharmas were anything more than nominal in nature they would be able to withstand keen scrutiny.

Ju Mipham:

Conventional truth is not ultimately real [bden par grub pa] because it is not able to withstand reasoned analysis.

Longchenpa:

If one analyses, what does not bear analysis is relative.

Rongzom states that convention:

is satisfactory when not investigated; but if investigated cannot bear the weight of reasoning.

Dharmas are only inferred via imputation, which means they are completely nominal in nature. A mere designation that infers the existence of something that isn’t really there. Obviously the connate ignorance underlies this process, but these levels of ignorance and delusion reify one another.


.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, November 9th, 2022 at 11:55 PM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
Sharp said:
One thread had this quote from "The Treasury of Precious Qualities, Book Two":

The eleventh root downfall is to subject the ineffable, ultimate nature to logical assessment. That to which the word “dharmadhatu“ refers is beyond name, example, and indication; it is beyond all conventional labeling. And even though the discursive intellect can, in its ratiocinations, understand ultimate reality as being “emptiness“ and “lack of self,“ in fact this “no-self“ of phenomena is exclusively the field of self-cognizing primordial wisdom. It stands in clean contradiction to the conventional, dualistic mind. The sharp, investigating intellect may indeed point to what is a lesser kind of emptiness of phenomena, such as the aggregates, and say that it is ultimate reality, thereby claiming a superior view. But to evaluate the unborn nature, namely, inconceivable ultimate reality, according to the criteria of ordinary thought, constitutes the eleventh downfall.

krodha wrote:
Seems pretty straightforward and obvious.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, November 9th, 2022 at 12:17 PM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
krodha wrote:
The “basis” is just the essence, nature and compassion of one’s vidyā.

stong gzugs said:
The basis exists regardless of whether one has vidyā or not. It therefore seems strange to define the basis by vidyā. I think it's more linguistically accurate to say that vidyā is recognition of the basis. But this seems like pointless word play?

krodha wrote:
Garab Dorje:

The fundamental basis is the trio of essence, nature and compassion of each individual's vidyā.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 8th, 2022 at 11:12 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
Sharp said:
You are arguing against conventions being arbitrary. I didn't say they were. You then write an essay about how rigpa is individual. I never said it wasn't. Rigpa is personal. The basis is neither personal, transpersonal etc. Since these two (rigpa and the basis) are neither the same nor different, there is no contradiction.

krodha wrote:
You don’t have to say things like “the basis is neither personal, transpersonal, etc.” this is incorrect and unnecessary.

Transpersonal natures or universals [pādārthas] are not accepted even conventionally. Discrete, personal entities, mindstreams etc., are allowed a conventional status. And then entities are ultimately empty. This covers all aspects of the issue.

Sharp said:
What I actually said was that no convention for the ultimate is accurate. The definition of accurate is "correct in all details; exact." This is exactly right.

krodha wrote:
Sorry, but this is neither right or “exactly right.”

Why would there not be a convention accurate for ultimate truth? This is a nonsensical assertion. The Dzogchen luminaries spent massive amounts of time writing about so-called ultimate truth and defining it precisely and carefully. Their writings are accurate.

"
Sharp said:
The basis is personal" is one such view, not "correct in all details", not "exact". Hence "inaccurate". “The basis is transpersonal” is another. Avoiding both extremes, the Tathagata “taught his Dhamma via the middle.”

krodha wrote:
This is not how this logic is applied.

Sharp said:
Of all of them, primordial purity is the least wrong, but still wrong, still a convention. And this being a convention "is itself the middle way".

krodha wrote:
It seems that you are trying to separate enumerated and unenumerated ultimate truth and are then asserting that only the unenumerated ultimate truth is right. But why? This is completely unnecessary.

Sharp said:
appreciate the translations, I'm sorry they were unnecessary. Here is a quote from Norbu Rinpoche instead:

The Base, or Zhi in Tibetan, is the term used to denote the fundamental ground of existence both at the Universal level and at the level of the individual, the two being essentially the same; to realize the one is to realize the other. If you realize yourself, you realize the nature of the Universe. [...] However, the Base should not be objectified and considered as a self-existing entity; it is the insubstantial State or condition which serves as the basis of all entities and individuals
I will never be able to articulate my position with more clarity than how it is expressed here.

krodha wrote:
This just means if you realize the nature of mind you realize the nature of phenomena.

I
Sharp said:
f you read this and think it means that "the basis is personal" or "the basis is transpersonal", then we simply have a different understanding of the meaning and that's okay. Either way I have never attempted to say anything other than what these words convey according to my own limitations.

krodha wrote:
You’re fixating on this personal versus transpersonal thing, and are sort of treating both as equal, but this isn’t the case. One is conventionally valid while the other is not.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 8th, 2022 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
Sharp said:
a dharmata or a mere experience...
The phrase "a dharmata" here is a typo but I am unable to edit my post. It should be disregarded, just like conventions.

krodha wrote:
Oh, I see. Well still you successfully demonstrated how a wrong convention is possible, and you even identified it yourself after telling me such a thing isn’t possible. This is palpable irony, Sharp!


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 8th, 2022 at 12:08 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:



Jules 09 said:
Remember the quote from the Mahaparinirvana sutra that I offered you earlier in this thread?

"All the fully enlightened Buddhas praised the meaning of the Buddha-Essence (Buddhanature) as inconceivable, immeasurable, and endless."

- It is just as Wangdor Rinpoche used to say: "Whatever it is, it's not what you think it is."

krodha wrote:
These statements just mean that the experience these conventions are applied to is ineffable. But that is true for anything. “Red ball” cannot capture the direct perception of a red ball. Just as “sweet” does not capture the experience of tasting sugar.

Direct perceptions are nonconceptual, this is well established in Buddhist pramana. People think being “beyond words” is profound, but everything is beyond words. It isn’t necessarily all that exciting once you figure that out.

Nevertheless, within the context of convention, there is accurate and inaccurate convention. Like describing the taste of sugar as “salty” would be inaccurate conventionally. This is all we do here on dharmawheel, discuss accurate and inaccurate convention.

Sharp said:
Rigpa is not like the qualia of something, such as the redness of an apple.

krodha wrote:
No one claimed it was. Regardless however, we can have a direct perception of an apple and a direct perception of vidyā and both pratyaksas are nonconceptual. The only difference is the former is karmic in nature.

Sharp said:
The difference is rigpa is decisive, precise, clear. It is diamond-like. The ineffability of redness is none of these things.

krodha wrote:
This is a little pedantic and out in left field. As long as the individual understands the principle of ineffability, then that is all that matters. You’re sort of going after a straw man here.

Sharp said:
As Mipham
states when distinguishing rigpa from the all ground:

[it]lacks decisiveness, since you are completely unable to describe it in any way. Rigpa, on the other hand, is essentially indescribable. Yet at the same time it has a decisive quality, which cuts through any doubt about what is indescribable. There is thus a huge difference between these two kinds of indescribability, as great as the difference between blindness and perfect vision. This is also a crucial point in distinguishing between the ground-of-all and the dharmakāya. Therefore, terms such as [...] inexpressible and so on are used in two different ways, only one of which is authentic.

krodha wrote:
Nice, but off topic.

Sharp said:
In short, the inexpressibility of reality and the inexpressibility of a dharmata or a mere experience are not at all the same;

krodha wrote:
I’m not sure what you mean by dharmatā being a “mere experience” that contrasts “reality,” (whatever that is). This is not how these principles are defined.

Sharp said:
they are the very difference between ignorance (the ground-of-all) and wisdom (dharmakaya). It is only like sugar because once you've tasted it you know that taste for yourself and can recognise it anywhere. Not because it is an arbitrary quality or characteristic of some "thing", like the redness of an apple.

krodha wrote:
Still very pedantic and missing the point, but since you just misdefined dharmatā, in addition to the pedantism, there’s now another layer of uncertainty in terms of your point.

Sharp said:
Therefore, it is also incorrect to say that one convention is more accurate than another when describing something intrinsically beyond expression, outside of terms that refer to this exact point such as "intrinsically beyond expression". Jules09 is correct - an accurate convention is not possible.

krodha wrote:
Yes, and no. Depends on context. In the context I was discussing there are indeed accurate and inaccurate conventions, just as you demonstrated with your definition of “dharmatā.”


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 7th, 2022 at 9:21 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
Jules 09 said:
Engaging in affirmation and rejection of concepts about buddhanature is not the path of the natural Great Perfection.

Johnny Dangerous said:
Then get out of here? Seriously, what do you think you've been doing this whole time?

Jules 09 said:
Remember the quote from the Mahaparinirvana sutra that I offered you earlier in this thread?

"All the fully enlightened Buddhas praised the meaning of the Buddha-Essence (Buddhanature) as inconceivable, immeasurable, and endless."

- It is just as Wangdor Rinpoche used to say: "Whatever it is, it's not what you think it is."

krodha wrote:
These statements just mean that the experience these conventions are applied to is ineffable. But that is true for anything. “Red ball” cannot capture the direct perception of a red ball. Just as “sweet” does not capture the experience of tasting sugar.

Direct perceptions are nonconceptual, this is well established in Buddhist pramana. People think being “beyond words” is profound, but everything is beyond words. It isn’t necessarily all that exciting once you figure that out.

Nevertheless, within the context of convention, there is accurate and inaccurate convention. Like describing the taste of sugar as “salty” would be inaccurate conventionally. This is all we do here on dharmawheel, discuss accurate and inaccurate convention.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 7th, 2022 at 3:43 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
Jules 09 said:
Are you saying that Dzogchen teachings reify personal identity?

Malcolm said:
Dzogchen teachings accept the limitations of language in discourse. For example, the Self-Arisen Vidyā Tantra begins: "Children of good families, listen faithfully without distraction! My explanation of the great meaning to each of you will remove the concepts in your minds."

So here we have the pronouns my, you, and your.

Further:

For sentient beings without realization,
each word must be understood with each meaning.
Therefore, connect the meanings with the words
and illustrate the great meaning with words.
Therefore, investigate the connection between the words and
meanings.
Though the illustrative words and letters
may not exist in utter purity itself,
because they remove mental doubts,
one should always be acquainted with the words.

And:

The transcendent state of all buddhas
is not words and syllables,
but appears like words and syllables.
Nevertheless, the great meaning is unravelled with words.

So, fortunately, even though the meaning of the great perfection is beyond verbal reifications such as self, other, and so on, Nāgarjuna's dictum remains in force in Dzogchen teachings:

Without relying on the conventional, the ultimate will not be understood;
without realizing the ultimate, nirvana will not be attained.

Jules 09 said:
That's all well and good. But it doesn't mean that buddhanature is something that belongs to the misconception that is given the name 'sentient being'.

krodha wrote:
It does mean that. The deceptively appearing bodies of sentient beings harbor the sugatagarbha inside of those bodies.

Longchenpa:

General delusion is caused by the stain of vidyā not recognizing the manifest basis, through which vidyā itself becomes polluted with delusion. Though vidyā itself is without the stains of cognition, it becomes endowed with stains, and through its becoming enveloped in the seal of mind, the vidyā of the ever pure essence is polluted by conceptualization. Chained by the sixfold manas, it is covered with the net of the body of partless atoms, and the luminosity becomes latent.

Thus, because vidyā fails to recognize these appearances to be its own movements, its pure dynamism is externalized and this causes the appearances to concretize like water turning into ice. Vidyā then recedes into the that deceptive appearance of a body like a cocoon of delusion and it then remains in a latent state that expresses itself in a limited and diminished fashion.

We can reverse this process through applying the ati teachings, but, for now, yes, you are stuck with this seemingly corporeal body comprised of the five elements and your vidyā dwells inside of that deceptive body... which is subject to all sorts of karmic action.

These elements that we experience as the body and our environment are fully formed cognitive errors that you’ve been entrenched in for lifetimes and lifetimes. While it is true that it is a misconception, you can’t just sit there and propose that it is a “misconception,” to explain it away if you have not conquered that delusion. For you it is very real. This isn’t a game.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 7th, 2022 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
krodha wrote:
Ju Mipham’s ”Investigation of the Essential Identity: Neither One Nor Many” from ‪the Four Great Logical Arguments of the Middle Way‬ is also quite good on this topic. He clarifies that so-called “ultimate natures” are really just species of absences.

To begin with, there is an analysis of the essential identity of all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena to determine whether or not there is true singularity. In the case of those conditioned phenomena of the five aggregates possessing physical form, there is a division into above, below, the cardinal and intermediate directions and the centre. Through this, it can be seen that, for something such as a vase, singularity is simply a conceptual notion applied to the various features that are the basis for such an imputation. True singularity is not established, and the same applies in the case of its component parts. The body and the limbs are also divided into parts in the same way.

In short, all that possesses physical form and is composed of material particles may be broken down to its basis, which is the infinitely small particle. And, according to the logic explained before, for that most subtle particle to be surrounded by particles in the various directions, it must have sides, which means it must have parts, and so on, in an infinite regression. If not, then however many subtle particles are gathered together, they could never grow any larger. Thus, all phenomena with material form lack true singularity.

In addition, the eight or the six collections of consciousness can not be established as truly singular since they consist of various cognitive acts and mental states, take various features as their focus, and arise in different forms from the gathering of the four conditions, and then cease.

By analyzing everything that has the nature of arising and ceasing deriving from its own causes, even the subtlemost indivisible moment can not be established, and so all phenomena included within mind and matter lack any true singularity. As for non-concurrent formations, they are simply imputations made upon the ‘occasion’ of mind and matter, and so they lack any essential identity. Unconditioned phenomena are imputations made with regard to the eliminated aspects of objects of negation, and are also lacking in any essential identity.

In short, all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena can not be shown to have any true singularity, and since this is not established, plurality that is made up of what is singular must also remain unestablished. And so, since there is no mode of true existence aside from being truly singular or plural, it must follow that individuals and phenomena are proven to be without inherent identity, just as it is explained more elaborately in The Ornament of the Middle Way.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 6th, 2022 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
Sharp said:
As others have said, linguistic conventions are useful as a pedagogical tool, but are naturally going to be limited by dualistic language.

krodha wrote:
This statement does not really make sense. Persons, places, things, etc., are only conventions. It is perfectly okay in these teachings for conventions to be dualistic, it doesn’t matter, because they are inferential imputations.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 6th, 2022 at 2:40 PM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:





Jules 09 said:
You seem to be saying that you think you possess your own buddhanature. Is this the case?

krodha wrote:
Yes, a conventional individual possess their own individual tathāgatagarbha. In Dzogchen teachings for example, that sugatagarbha even has a physical location in the body.

Jules 09 said:
Are you saying that Dzogchen teachings reify personal identity?

krodha wrote:
In addition to Johnny’s answer, these teachings also allow for a conventional identity. That identity appears solid and concrete for deluded sentient beings. Buddha’s on the other hand know that all identities are just useful inferences that reference nothing substantial.

In either case we can utilize identity as a tool for navigating our lives. That is the meaning of convention. We aren’t like Neo-Advaitains who have to sit around using scare quotes around “I” and “me.”


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 6th, 2022 at 6:18 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
Natan said:
There's not one cite that says or implies Buddhanature is individual and specific to each person.

Malcolm said:
In fact, the Lankāvtāra Sūtra states that tathāgatagarbha is just a name for the ālayavijñāna. How is the ālayavijñāna not personal and individual?

Asanga states in the Uttaratantra commentary that the name for the dharmakāya encased in afflictions is "tathāgatagarbha." How can personal afflictions encase a transpersonal entity? He later states in the same that the name for suchness, tathāta, encased in afflictions is tathāgatagarbha. The same question applies. He later describes sentient beings as "tathāgarbhins", possessors of tathāgatagarbha. In the same way consciousness pervades all sentient beings, it is stated that tathāgatagarbha pervades all sentient beings. However, no one thinks the phrase "consciousness pervades all sentient beings" means there is one unitary consciousness that pervades all sentient beings. It is the same with the basis, tathāgatagarbha. Finally, Asanga concludes his treatises by pointing out that the gnosis of tathāgatagarbha is just the tathāgata's gnosis of emptiness. He says:

"Without the gnosis of ultimate emptiness, it is impossible to realize and actualize the dhātu of pure nonconceptuality. Having stated this, the gnosis of tathāgatagarbha is the Tathāgata's gnosis of emptiness. Further, it is said extensively that the tathāgatagarbha has not been seen or realized by all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. However tathāgatagarbha is, the dharmakāyagarbha is just like that, and it is not within the domain of those who fall into a view of personality (satkāyadṛṣṭi), because the dharmadhātu is the antidote to views."

So how is the dharmadhātu defined in this text? Again "The so-called dharmadhātu is the tathāgatagabha that is no different than the nature of one's dharmatā."

So here you have a very precise description of tathāgatagarbha being described as individual and specific to each sentient being. Since the spyi gzhi is just a term for tathāgatagarbha in Dzogchen teachings, we can understand the meaning to be the same here, especially since in the discussion of how the basis exists in the body in the third topic of the Tshig don mdzod, Longchenpa mainly cites from the Uttaratantra.

In the same way that we talk about the vijñānadhātu or the sattvadhātu as aggregates of consciousness and sentient beings, we talk about the dharmadhātu as an an aggregate of dharmatās. Without individual dharmatās that belong to dharmins, we cannot talk about dharmatās at all, just as we cannot talk about the emptiness of nonexistents like the children of barren women, etc.

And of course in Vajrayāna teachings, we go a step further and site the location of sugatagarbha in the bodies of sentient beings. However, the idea the sugatagarbha sited in the bodies of all sentient beings refers to one transpersonal entity has been rejected by the Buddha very clearly as an incorrect view of atman. For example, the Nirvana Sūtra (Chinese recension) explicitly rejects it: "Child of a good family, some tīrthikas advocate a permanent "self," other advocate an annhilationist "not-self." The Tathagata is not like that. Because he teaches self and not-self, it is called "the middle." Now, whoever teaches the Buddha's middle way can say that the nature of buddhahood exists in all sentient beings, but it is not known and not seen because it is obscured by afflictions. Therefore, be diligent in the method of eliminating afflictions."  The Indian recension of the Nirvana sutra states, "The buddhadhātu exists in all sentient beings, held in each one's body. After sentient beings exhaust afflictions, they become buddhas."

I could go on, but we are getting into TL;DR territory

Natan said:
Alayavijnana is one's personal mistake. Buddhanature is not. I don't need to assert there is something called transpersonal. You need to assert apparently that there's not. The only thing apparent in meditation is a nonconceptual experience.

krodha wrote:
There are different types of nonconceptual experience and different types of nonconceptual realization. Even relatively this is true. The taste of sugar and the taste of salt are both direct, nonconceptual, ineffable experiences, but are both radically different in characteristic.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 6th, 2022 at 5:29 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
Jules 09 said:
And no, "there isn’t a unified Buddhanature pervading all sentient beings" because the Basis, Buddhanature has never been fragmented, so cannot be said to be "unified". And neither is it the case that each sentient being has 'their own' Buddhanature.

Malcolm said:
The basis is just a generic set of attributes, this is why Dzogchen texts refer to it as the "spyi gzhi," "the generic basis."

All fires are hot. Not all fires are the same. The same heat does not permeate all fires. "heat" is a "spyi mtshan nyid," a generic characteristic (samanyalakṣana), known in western philosophy as a universal. Dzogchen is a Buddhist system, and like all the other ones, is nominalist in orientation.

The general example in Dzogchen for buddhanature is the oil in sesame seeds. The Vajrasattva Mind Mirror:

Tathāgatagarbha exists intrinsically in all sentient beings. That exists just as sesame seeds are permeated with oil. Its basis — it is based on the material aggregate.

When you press one seed, it produces its own oil, not the oil of all seeds. When you "press" one sentient being with the path, that being produces their own buddhahood, not the buddhahood of all beings. So you are incorrect, every sentient beings possesses their own buddhanature just as every sesame seed possesses its own oil.

The reason why the basis is beyond one or many is that the basis is a generic set of attributes, just as heat, the generic attribute of fire, is beyond one or many. Since generic characteristics are unreal, they cannot be quantified as being "one" or "many." Why are they unreal? Because they are abstractions.
every sentient beings possesses their own buddhanature just as every sesame seed possesses its own oil.

Jules 09 said:
You seem to be saying that you think you possess your own buddhanature. Is this the case?

krodha wrote:
Yes, a conventional individual possess their own individual tathāgatagarbha. In Dzogchen teachings for example, that sugatagarbha even has a physical location in the body.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, November 5th, 2022 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
stong gzugs said:
No lineage that I'm aware of thinks of vidyā/rigpa as collective. The question here is about the basis.

krodha wrote:
The “basis” is just the essence, nature and compassion of one’s vidyā.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 4th, 2022 at 10:45 PM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
Jules 09 said:
He appears be dividing and differentiating his unceasing flow of spontaneous presence into "Equipoise" and "post equipoise".

krodha wrote:
This indicates you really don’t understand how the path of Dzogchen works.

Jules 09 said:
That and citing the same forum post from JLA about the importance of conceptual understanding in Dzogchen.

krodha wrote:
It is beneficial for people, and is applicable to everyone. It is also good for those such as yourself who mistakenly think they possess some sort of “unceasing flow of spontaneous presence” and clearly insert the result into the basis like some nihilist.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 4th, 2022 at 6:25 AM
Title: Re: Jean-Luc Achard on the Role and Importance of Study and Conceptual Understanding in one’s Relationship with Dzogchen
Content:
krodha wrote:
There is never enough reading. All the main masters of the past and recent times that one venerates from Longchenpa to Jigme Lingpa, from Dru Gyelwa to Kundrol Rinpoche, from Khyentse Wangpo to Shardza, from Khenpo Gangshar to Sakya Tridzin, from HH the Dalai Lama to Yongdzin Rinpoche (too many names to list), all of them have spent a gazillion sessions of their practice in formal study. I don't think this has caused them any obscurations. I don't buy a single minute the legends of brainless yogis reaching Rainbow Body as a paradigm to follow for westerners without a proper buddhist/bon complete education. The Dharma is one of the three Jewels, it does not cause obscurations. I would add to this that ignorance comes from not recognizing one's state but it is maintained, developed and intensified by the absence of study. It is only among lay people in the West that there is this fancy that one will reach anywhere on the path of Dharma while despising texts and teachings.

There are other forums where people are proud of their ignorance. I am not. I am ashamed of it when I compare it to the knowledge of my masters. I try every single day to spend my time 50/50 in between practice and study. Study never let me down. I can tell you, for having met people who reject study in the past 35 years, that not a single of them has a clue about what Rigpa is. You can spend a gazillion years on your cushion, if the correct understanding is not there, you simply waste your time. You never waste your time reading the teachings the masters so kindly composed for the past 2,000 years. So reading texts after texts is a correct way to chase ignorance away. I don't think anybody here claims to be a great vidyadhara. However, I have met countless people with a dramatically superficial "knowledge" of the teachings who claim to be advanced on the path and who actually ignore the stages of that path. Lopon [Tenzin Namdak] said this once:

"I prefer someone who has clearly understood the state of Dzogchen, even intellectually, as opposed to a brainless yogi able to stand upside-down on the tip of a grass with one single finger. I know which of the two can have a chance at recognizing the state in the Bardo."

Throwing the books [marginalizing study] is throwing one of the 3 Jewels in the river. This is a totally nihilistic approach which has nothing whatsoever to do with Dzogchen. When Shakyamuni was there, we were in a period associated with his Body (i.e. the Buddha was there physically), then he passed away and we were still more or less in a period associated with his Body through those who had met him personally and received his teachings. Then when these died, we entered a period associated with his Speech only, because that was all was left of him: his teachings transmitted as best as masters could do at the time. Then when things started to be written down, we entered a period associated with his Mind, i.e. a period where all that was left of him was what he had taught according to his realization and this was now in written form for us. We should consider ourselves as lucky to even have access to that because these are teachings of an enlightened being, not an ordinary one, not nihilism. And Shakyamuni’s basic message beside the 4 Noble Truths is: stay away from the two extremes, nihilism and eternalism. Enter the middle Path. Dzogchen is in perfect accord with this view.

Again, nobody said that what we read IS rigpa. This is stupid to even think of it. However, words are pointers, they are indicators of a deeper meaning and they have symbolic semantic fields which help understand a key-idea of Dzogchen in the proper terms of Dzogchen. And again, we were not, at least I was not, discussing how to enter Rigpa but what Rigpa is. Contrary to what you think, Rigpa can be enunciated in words. This is what all the Tantras of Dzogchen do. It is not because the state is beyond words and speech that speech and words cannot convey a deeper meaning at a subtler level than they are outwardly. Denying this is denying the function of the Sambhogakaya in us.

To make things clear for the forum — this may be my mistake because I haven't been very active on it in the past months: we believe in study and practice. We don't welcome opinions negating the value of study to promote a so-called practice which may be flawed because of a lack of understanding (resulting from an absence of study). This is in particular true with the dramatic proliferations that are affecting so many Nyingma students in the West about Rigpa. Understanding Rigpa is simpler than they think but these people are fantasizing about a magical state, etc. Rigpa is knowledge. It is not difficult to experience it.

This is important because, when one says Rigpa is beyond consciousness and thoughts, some people identify it with non-discursiveness. This is wrong: Rigpa can be with or without thoughts. But when it is with thoughts, these are only altruistic ones that one uses for the "activities of the wise" (mkhas pa'i bya ba), namely explanations, debates and compositions. Now, to enter these activities and take part in the Dharma, one needs the selfless knoweldge of the Buddha which is acquired through studies, otherwise one risks to spread one's own deluded "dharma" which will certainly be a cause to lower rebirths. This is where canonicity enters the game: it is very important if one intends to teach that the teachings are within the confines of canonicity. There have for instance been heterodox Dzogchen systems in the past in Tibet, propounded by unrealized masters such as the Dzogchen De'uma system. I think this is one of the main reasons so few westerners are actually authorized to teach from texts, but are rather authorized to discourse a little on Dzogchen, as introductory lectures.

Traditionally, Lamas would train you in both study and practice because they both enrich each other. Studies help you understand the subtleties of your mind, and practice helps you understand what’s written in texts by enlightened masters, an understanding which in turn helps you realizing what “occurs” or not in your contemplation, and so on endlessly.

If I have something personal to say here it would be to repeat (it has become my personal opinion since years, so i share this one as a treasure for me) what Lopon [Tenzin Namdak] Rinpoche told me:

Study and practice. Practice and Study. You studies will clear out what you experience in practice. Your experience in practice will make you understand the teachings of the Buddhas that you read. Then what you read will totally clarify what you meditate on."
It's the Wheel of Wisdom. All is there.

climb-up said:
Wonderful!
Is that a quote from something or was that written specifically to be posted here?

krodha wrote:
It is a synthesis of a few posts of Jean-Luc’s on this topic from his own forum, dating back 6 or 7 years ago. I think he was periodically encountering a theme of anti-intellectualism and felt it was necessary to make some clarifications.

climb-up said:
What is the heterodox “Dzogchen de’uma” system? Obviously I’m not interested in learning a deviation of the teachings, but has it’s history been written about in English?

krodha wrote:
I’m not sure.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 4th, 2022 at 4:53 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
Jules 09 said:
The citation from DJKR was made in the discussion I was having with Kyle. Going by some of the things that he has said in this thread, it may be relevant to where he is at.

krodha wrote:
I didn’t realize the intention of your citation was to address somewhere “I’m at.” Everything I’ve said in this thread is applicable to everyone here. Unless you are a Buddha you are not beyond this subject matter. Even āryas on the bhūmis are subject to it.

Nurture and guard your vidyā, don’t overvalue “where you’re at.”


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 3rd, 2022 at 8:03 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:



Johnny Dangerous said:
Idk, I can see it mattering. Particularly if a Dzogchen or Vajrayana practitioner decides that they can just bliss out because their mind stream is somehow joined to the Big Dharmakaya. It’s mistaken category, as mentioned before like believing we all share the same fireplace because all our fires are hot.

Additionally, universally (sutra, Tantra, Dzogchen, whatever) the path begins with deep, naked examination of the relative state, points of view which implicitly direct people away from that process in favor of the above could certainly be deviations. ChNN talked often about understanding the real condition of the individual, there’s layers to that, but I can see this mattering.

This kind of belief often goes hand in hand with the standard cop out “it’s all emptiness dude” and has to do with perception of individual agency, so I am not sure it is so unimportant .

krodha wrote:
Agreed, seems important, especially if the tantras state it multiple times.

Some other examples just for the thread:

The Self-Arisen Vidyā:

The transcendent state of perfect buddhas exists in the forms of kāyas and pristine consciousness [ye shes] in the personal continuums of all sentient beings.
And from the sgra thal ‘gyur commentary:

In Ati, the pristine consciousness [ye shes]—subsumed by the consciousness which apprehends primordial liberation and the abiding basis as ultimate—is inseparable in all buddhas and sentient beings as a mere consciousness. Since the ultimate pervades them without any nature at all, it is contained within each individual consciousness.

Natan said:
At least I won't mock you and say you don't understand this subtle point that only the few can get.

krodha wrote:
That is fair, I apologize for going off a little earlier. Four years ago left a bad taste in my mouth, but I don’t want bad blood between us.

Natan said:
But this is talking about how it is prior to any realization of the path. It's true for all of Mahayana and Vajrayana. There's nothing unique to Dzogchen in this.

krodha wrote:
It can be both, that is the beauty of nominal conventions.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 3rd, 2022 at 7:41 AM
Title: Jean-Luc Achard on the Role and Importance of Study and Conceptual Understanding in one’s Relationship with Dzogchen
Content:
Unknown said:
There is never enough reading. All the main masters of the past and recent times that one venerates from Longchenpa to Jigme Lingpa, from Dru Gyelwa to Kundrol Rinpoche, from Khyentse Wangpo to Shardza, from Khenpo Gangshar to Sakya Tridzin, from HH the Dalai Lama to Yongdzin Rinpoche (too many names to list), all of them have spent a gazillion sessions of their practice in formal study. I don't think this has caused them any obscurations. I don't buy a single minute the legends of brainless yogis reaching Rainbow Body as a paradigm to follow for westerners without a proper buddhist/bon complete education. The Dharma is one of the three Jewels, it does not cause obscurations. I would add to this that ignorance comes from not recognizing one's state but it is maintained, developed and intensified by the absence of study. It is only among lay people in the West that there is this fancy that one will reach anywhere on the path of Dharma while despising texts and teachings.

There are other forums where people are proud of their ignorance. I am not. I am ashamed of it when I compare it to the knowledge of my masters. I try every single day to spend my time 50/50 in between practice and study. Study never let me down. I can tell you, for having met people who reject study in the past 35 years, that not a single of them has a clue about what Rigpa is. You can spend a gazillion years on your cushion, if the correct understanding is not there, you simply waste your time. You never waste your time reading the teachings the masters so kindly composed for the past 2,000 years. So reading texts after texts is a correct way to chase ignorance away. I don't think anybody here claims to be a great vidyadhara. However, I have met countless people with a dramatically superficial "knowledge" of the teachings who claim to be advanced on the path and who actually ignore the stages of that path. Lopon [Tenzin Namdak] said this once:

"I prefer someone who has clearly understood the state of Dzogchen, even intellectually, as opposed to a brainless yogi able to stand upside-down on the tip of a grass with one single finger. I know which of the two can have a chance at recognizing the state in the Bardo."

Throwing the books [marginalizing study] is throwing one of the 3 Jewels in the river. This is a totally nihilistic approach which has nothing whatsoever to do with Dzogchen. When Shakyamuni was there, we were in a period associated with his Body (i.e. the Buddha was there physically), then he passed away and we were still more or less in a period associated with his Body through those who had met him personally and received his teachings. Then when these died, we entered a period associated with his Speech only, because that was all was left of him: his teachings transmitted as best as masters could do at the time. Then when things started to be written down, we entered a period associated with his Mind, i.e. a period where all that was left of him was what he had taught according to his realization and this was now in written form for us. We should consider ourselves as lucky to even have access to that because these are teachings of an enlightened being, not an ordinary one, not nihilism. And Shakyamuni’s basic message beside the 4 Noble Truths is: stay away from the two extremes, nihilism and eternalism. Enter the middle Path. Dzogchen is in perfect accord with this view.

Again, nobody said that what we read IS rigpa. This is stupid to even think of it. However, words are pointers, they are indicators of a deeper meaning and they have symbolic semantic fields which help understand a key-idea of Dzogchen in the proper terms of Dzogchen. And again, we were not, at least I was not, discussing how to enter Rigpa but what Rigpa is. Contrary to what you think, Rigpa can be enunciated in words. This is what all the Tantras of Dzogchen do. It is not because the state is beyond words and speech that speech and words cannot convey a deeper meaning at a subtler level than they are outwardly. Denying this is denying the function of the Sambhogakaya in us.

To make things clear for the forum — this may be my mistake because I haven't been very active on it in the past months: we believe in study and practice. We don't welcome opinions negating the value of study to promote a so-called practice which may be flawed because of a lack of understanding (resulting from an absence of study). This is in particular true with the dramatic proliferations that are affecting so many Nyingma students in the West about Rigpa. Understanding Rigpa is simpler than they think but these people are fantasizing about a magical state, etc. Rigpa is knowledge. It is not difficult to experience it.

This is important because, when one says Rigpa is beyond consciousness and thoughts, some people identify it with non-discursiveness. This is wrong: Rigpa can be with or without thoughts. But when it is with thoughts, these are only altruistic ones that one uses for the "activities of the wise" (mkhas pa'i bya ba), namely explanations, debates and compositions. Now, to enter these activities and take part in the Dharma, one needs the selfless knoweldge of the Buddha which is acquired through studies, otherwise one risks to spread one's own deluded "dharma" which will certainly be a cause to lower rebirths. This is where canonicity enters the game: it is very important if one intends to teach that the teachings are within the confines of canonicity. There have for instance been heterodox Dzogchen systems in the past in Tibet, propounded by unrealized masters such as the Dzogchen De'uma system. I think this is one of the main reasons so few westerners are actually authorized to teach from texts, but are rather authorized to discourse a little on Dzogchen, as introductory lectures.

Traditionally, Lamas would train you in both study and practice because they both enrich each other. Studies help you understand the subtleties of your mind, and practice helps you understand what’s written in texts by enlightened masters, an understanding which in turn helps you realizing what “occurs” or not in your contemplation, and so on endlessly.

If I have something personal to say here it would be to repeat (it has become my personal opinion since years, so i share this one as a treasure for me) what Lopon [Tenzin Namdak] Rinpoche told me:

Study and practice. Practice and Study. You studies will clear out what you experience in practice. Your experience in practice will make you understand the teachings of the Buddhas that you read. Then what you read will totally clarify what you meditate on."
It's the Wheel of Wisdom. All is there.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 3rd, 2022 at 6:39 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:





Jules 09 said:
It could also be said that the result is impossible whilst that referent still remains.

krodha wrote:
There is an aspect of cognition, the svasaṃvitti, if that is mistaken as a passive background, subjective “knower” of objective “known” objects then it manifests as dualistic consciousness, vijñāna.

Buddhas have conquered this misconception of that svasaṃvitti being an independent subject. And their cognition then expresses itself as nondual jñāna free of that subjective substrate that a self is imputed onto.

But again we as Buddhists accomplish this without an overarching, monolithic and established ultimate nature like tirthika systems. And in addition, we do not negate the conventional continuum of mind that vijñāna and jñāna are modalities of. There’s no need to negate conventions because they are only nominal in nature, they aren’t real.

Jules 09 said:
There’s no need to negate conventions because they are only nominal in nature, they aren’t real.
The result is for an individual mind,
Yes, as Tsele Natsok Rangdrol said in The Heart of the Matter:

" The moment you recognize the falsity of 
delusion is called the view."

( Heart Lamp, p.108.)

krodha wrote:
Indeed. It is all false. Delusion is the influencing factor that causes phenomena, including the self, to seem concrete and substantial. Complete knowledge of the false nature of dharmas is dharmakāya, which is inversely, simply the total elimination of delusion.

The Saddharmapundarika Sūtra states:

If no phenomena are perceived at all, 
that is the great wisdom that perceives
the whole dharmakāya.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 3rd, 2022 at 6:05 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:


Natan said:
Sure. That's what the dhyanas aka jhanas are, incomplete realizations. But if Vimalamitra wanted to say you must understand the result is an individual consciousness in contrast to the way it is described in the Guhyagarbha Tantra chapter 1 he most certainly would have. Also the goal is nothing to do with individual consciousness. It's beyond one and many and so forth.

Malcolm said:
The result is for an individual mind, because not everyone attains buddhahood at the same time.
The result is for an individual mind,

Jules 09 said:
It could also be said that the result is impossible whilst that referent still remains.

krodha wrote:
There is an aspect of cognition, the svasaṃvitti, if that is mistaken as a passive background, subjective “knower” of objective “known” objects then it manifests as dualistic consciousness, vijñāna. That reference point becomes an active characteristic of cognition due to the influence of afflictive causal factors such as ignorance and grasping, but in sentient beings it is the prevailing modality of cognition and is the basis for selfhood and samsara in general.

Buddhas have conquered this misconception of that svasaṃvitti being an independent subject. And their cognition then expresses itself as nondual jñāna free of that subjective substrate that a self is imputed onto.

But again we as Buddhists accomplish this without an overarching, monolithic and established ultimate nature like tirthika systems. And in addition, we do not negate the conventional continuum of mind that vijñāna and jñāna are modalities of. There’s no need to negate conventions because they are only nominal in nature, they aren’t real.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 3rd, 2022 at 4:30 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:



Natan said:
He could have said individual consciousness. Anyway, you think so, then it's ok. I don't think it matters really what one believes about this going into it. All these ideas don't really make a difference in the end if one is practicing the method.

Johnny Dangerous said:
Idk, I can see it mattering. Particularly if a Dzogchen or Vajrayana practitioner decides that they can just bliss out because their mind stream is somehow joined to the Big Dharmakaya. It’s mistaken category, as mentioned before like believing we all share the same fireplace because all our fires are hot.

Additionally, universally (sutra, Tantra, Dzogchen, whatever) the path begins with deep, naked examination of the relative state, points of view which implicitly direct people away from that process in favor of the above could certainly be deviations. ChNN talked often about understanding the real condition of the individual, there’s layers to that, but I can see this mattering.

This kind of belief often goes hand in hand with the standard cop out “it’s all emptiness dude” and has to do with perception of individual agency, so I am not sure it is so unimportant .

Natan said:
It.dont think the passages are about avoiding deviations. It seems more about explaining the body mind situation that makes it work. Why one would need think this is my individual mind or not my individual mind to work the system doesn't make sense, because in tregcho and togal one is not thinking. One is just looking.

krodha wrote:
There are relative nyams and relative nondual states that can seem very profound. Oceanic, cosmic consciousness where all appearances seem like the universe as a single entity undulating and expressing itself, to itself, in a state of total oneness. That is a legitimate state. But not the goal in these teachings, and if one does not know any better they can mistake that for jñāna. Errors like that happen.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 3rd, 2022 at 4:19 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:



Malcolm said:
If course it supports the point...an individual consciousness.

Natan said:
He could have said individual consciousness. Anyway, you think so, then it's ok. I don't think it matters really what one believes about this going into it. All these ideas don't really make a difference in the end if one is practicing the method.

Johnny Dangerous said:
Idk, I can see it mattering. Particularly if a Dzogchen or Vajrayana practitioner decides that they can just bliss out because their mind stream is somehow joined to the Big Dharmakaya. It’s mistaken category, as mentioned before like believing we all share the same fireplace because all our fires are hot.

Additionally, universally (sutra, Tantra, Dzogchen, whatever) the path begins with deep, naked examination of the relative state, points of view which implicitly direct people away from that process in favor of the above could certainly be deviations. ChNN talked often about understanding the real condition of the individual, there’s layers to that, but I can see this mattering.

This kind of belief often goes hand in hand with the standard cop out “it’s all emptiness dude” and has to do with perception of individual agency, so I am not sure it is so unimportant .

krodha wrote:
Agreed, seems important, especially if the tantras state it multiple times.

Some other examples just for the thread:

The Self-Arisen Vidyā:

The transcendent state of perfect buddhas exists in the forms of kāyas and pristine consciousness [ye shes] in the personal continuums of all sentient beings.
And from the sgra thal ‘gyur commentary:

In Ati, the pristine consciousness [ye shes]—subsumed by the consciousness which apprehends primordial liberation and the abiding basis as ultimate—is inseparable in all buddhas and sentient beings as a mere consciousness. Since the ultimate pervades them without any nature at all, it is contained within each individual consciousness.
I think people object to this because they do not really understand how ultimate truth and the unconditioned in general are species of absences in buddhadharma. In this case, the absence of an essential nature in the alleged conventional entity called “mind.”

If people understood how convention worked in this sense they would see how this ends up being far more profound than merely opting for some Brahman like ultimate. It actually goes further than these tirthika systems do. Brahman or some sort of ultimate nature like that ends up being a half measure.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 3rd, 2022 at 3:29 AM
Title: Re: Will I gain Buddhist merit as a Hindu?
Content:



krodha wrote:
The Theravada scholar Thanissaro Bikkhu is most responsible for misusing this sutta with Vacchagotta. He makes the same conclusion you do. Bikkhu Bodhi and Bhante Sujato object to Thanissaro’s interpretation.

Bhante Sujato says this idea that the Buddha refused to answer is false and that Thanissaro’s assertion to that end is flawed or incomplete. Sujato cites Bikkhu Bodhi for clarification, and explains that the silence in that one particular instance was to keep Vacchagotta from adopting a view of annihilationism where a self currently exists and then ceases to exist. The Buddha’s silence was not intended as some sort of endorsement for a neutral or indeterminate view with regard to the status of a self. The Buddha routinely states “sabbe dhamma anatta” all phenomena both conditioned and unconditioned are devoid of self. Incidentally, Thanissaro offers a butchered interpretation of “sabbe dhamma anatta” as well. You see many Theravadins and even some Mahāyānis confused by such misconceptions.

laic said:
Hello krodha,

Thanks. Maybe a relevant verse or two can be found in the Sutta Nipata...........


Seeing misery in views and opinions, without adopting any, I found inner peace and freedom. One who is free does not hold to views or dispute opinions. For a sage there is no higher, lower, nor equal, no places in which the mind can stick. But those who grasp after views and opinions only wander about the world annoying people.

Well, I'm no sage but I get the gist of it, even if I have annoyed a few people in my time.

All the best.

krodha wrote:
An absence of views for Buddhas is related to the realization of emptiness. If we, as mere sentient beings relinquish relative views, including right view in its various expressions, then we are in error.

Like using more water to flush out water trapped in an ear, we must use views skillfully on the path. Abandoning views and opinions without realizing the definitive meaning of “an absence of views” is really a fool’s errand.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 3rd, 2022 at 3:08 AM
Title: Re: Will I gain Buddhist merit as a Hindu?
Content:



Malcolm said:
This is an error... Etc etc

Since there is no person designated on anything other than the five aggregates, the Buddha definitely taught that there is no self.

laic said:
Then we disagree, which is fine.

This all relates to the Buddha's dealings with Vacchagotta, as recorded the Theravada texts:-

Note that Buddha neither said “there is a self” or “there is not a self.” But among many Buddhists there appears to be a kind of dogmatism that says “there is not a self” instead of taking the true middle. Also Buddha replied by silence because he considered the condition of the questioner and the effect of a dogmatic reply on him. Buddha did not say “there is no self” to prevent the bewilderment of Vacchagotta. “For he would have said: ‘Formerly indeed I had a self but now I have not one any more.’” 

It was Buddha’s aim not to give a “final” speculative answer but to be free from all theories and to know, by experience, “the nature of form and how form arises and how form perishes.” He wanted “not a third position lying between two extremes but a no-position that supersedes them both.” This is the Middle Way.

(The musings of Thomas Merton while mid-pacific on his way to Asia, reading Murti's book "The Central.Philosophy of Buddhism)

All the best

krodha wrote:
The Theravada scholar Thanissaro Bikkhu is most responsible for misusing this sutta with Vacchagotta. He makes the same conclusion you do. Bikkhu Bodhi and Bhante Sujato object to Thanissaro’s interpretation.

Bhante Sujato says this idea that the Buddha refused to answer is false and that Thanissaro’s assertion to that end is flawed or incomplete. Sujato cites Bikkhu Bodhi for clarification, and explains that the silence in that one particular instance was to keep Vacchagotta from adopting a view of annihilationism where a self currently exists and then ceases to exist. The Buddha’s silence was not intended as some sort of endorsement for a neutral or indeterminate view with regard to the status of a self. The Buddha routinely states “sabbe dhamma anatta” all phenomena both conditioned and unconditioned are devoid of self. Incidentally, Thanissaro offers a butchered interpretation of “sabbe dhamma anatta” as well. You see many Theravadins and even some Mahāyānis confused by such misconceptions.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 3rd, 2022 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:


Natan said:
But here Norbu Rinpoche has his to say... (A FB buddy sent me this, thanks buddy... I won't say his name bc I didn't ask)

https://archive.org/details/the_supreme_source/page/n147

Hard to copy from this format, but paraphrasing the Q&A whether there can be infinite Samantabhadras if there are infinite sentient beings, Rinpoche answers this is a misleading question because it posits an impossible limitation on Samantabhadra which is beyond "individual being."

krodha wrote:
Again, guru Natan, we are able to accomplish going beyond "individual being" without falling headlong into some sort of brahman type view. This is a subtle point, not understood well by many so I don't fault you.

Natan said:
Kyle, your definition of this dry dharmakaya is not how it is taught as essence, nature and compassion in Dzogchen. Dharmakaya is complete with qualities, wisdoms and activities of body, speech and mind. That is just Dzogchen 101. That sort of sutra level analysis is useful for orientation into Buddhist phenomenalogy, but a yogi on the path of tantras gets a few lessons on lists of views and then is introduced to three primordial wisdoms directly.

krodha wrote:
I never said it wasn't. Spare me the straw man argument guru Natan.

Natan said:
Dharmakaya is definitely not just a generic quality in Vajrayana.

krodha wrote:
The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Natan said:
The samaya would also be broken by conceptualizing any views, Buddhist ones, too.

krodha wrote:
This is simply false.

Natan said:
That's what Tilopa said to Naropa. "The conceptual keeping of Samaya violates the ultimate Samaya." And "Proponents of the secret mantra and the pāramitā vehicles, the vinaya, and the other scriptural authorities will not reveal the luminosity of mahāmudrā by expounding on their texts and philosophical traditions"

krodha wrote:
Yet we see prolific scholars in all these traditions who were accomplished yogis and buddhas. These two are not mutually exclusive either.

Natan said:
You say you understand something, but what? Did some lama say you understand something?

krodha wrote:
We can't all be like you, Nate, and have a high lama tell us we are a full fledged Buddha.

Natan said:
Or did you appoint that to yourself? Brahman is just a word that means many different things to different people, some of those definitions are very very close to Buddhanature as described in tantras.

krodha wrote:
In certain contexts, not in others.

Natan said:
This is sharply distinguished in sutra, but not in tantra. It's not easy to receive complete instructions in Vajrayana so I don't fault you.

krodha wrote:
I do not lack complete instructions and empowerments in Vajrayana, but I appreciate your concern.

Natan said:
I know what no grasping means.

krodha wrote:
Do you?

Natan said:
But what you are doing is not nongrasping. It's another attachment to your view.

krodha wrote:
More context conflation. Equipoise and post-equipoise are two different things. It has never been said at any time, anywhere, that a practitioner cannot read, study, debate or discuss views as post-equipoise activities, and it does not detract from the individual's path one iota. Of course, you who has attained the dgongs pa beyond equipoise and post-equipoise, I mean, obviously none of that applies to you, and we all bow to you tathagata, shower us all with your compassionate blessings.

Natan said:
There's no mystery to it if that's what you're referring to. I wouldn't want to create a straw man based on your own word choices.. Dharma is actually really easy to understand.

krodha wrote:
Oh yeah, really easy. Its almost like being a totally awakened buddha is exactly like being a normal afflicted sentient being, its just so simple.

Natan said:
It just gets complicated by pseudo intellectuals. It's good to follow lamas btw. You should try it.

krodha wrote:
I do, buddy. But again, appreciate the concern.

Natan said:
Reading on the internet only gets you so far.

krodha wrote:
The "you're just an intellectual" tactic.

Natan said:
The accomplished scholars typically have to put the books away for their years in retreat. And practicing in earnest clarifies everything by itself. That's what Tilopa said you become a torch of the teaching.

krodha wrote:
Guru Nate, the torch.

Natan said:
The methods are mutually exclusive. You cannot contemplate the nonconceptual while conceptualizing constantly. That's why Tilopa instructs to give up all activities and rest the mind. If one were serious about scholarship one would probably want to go to school for it.

krodha wrote:
The methods are not mutually exclusive, at all. Equipoise, non-conceptual. Post-equipoise, a certain degree of conceptuality accords perfectly with sharpening the prajna of reflection and again, many accomplished yogis and key luminaries spent (and still spend) a great deal of time reading, studying and so on. This warped idea that practitioners need to fixate on the non-conceptual at all times is a totally false western trope.

Now, is the view of Vajrayana and Dzogchen non-conceptual? Of course. Is realization non-conceptual? Of course. No on is claiming otherwise. But spare me this first year zen student nonsense.

Natan said:
The fact is our traditions do have a lot in common. Much more in common than differences.

krodha wrote:
Our tradition(s)?

Natan said:
And you can slide your underhanded snipe at me for using Guru Natan, but it wasn't something I wanted to do. I have sponsors who are pushing me out to teach, because they benefitted from the methods (which are 100% lineage word for word) and they want me to put myself out there so others may benefit.

krodha wrote:
I don't have to be underhanded. You aren't a buddha. And you did not realize the fourth vision.

Natan said:
At that time you didn't even have a lama and maybe saw ChNN once.

krodha wrote:
Norbu Rinpoche was my lama for ten years. I did meet him once. I didn't need to meet him any more than that. He was very generous and gave remote teachings regularly and I received everything I needed to receive from him.

Natan said:
You remember when I gave you all my dharma gear and took off from the country? That was over 4 years ago now.

krodha wrote:
Yes, I remember when you gave me much of your stuff, and then tried to have me pawn some of it for you. And then you asked me to mail some of it back to you, I gladly obliged. And then you asked me for money when I had none, and when I couldn't produce that for you, when you couldn't use me for something, you said we were no longer friends and we haven't spoken since.

I do hope you are doing better than you were back then, I truly do not have any ill feelings towards you apart from a distaste for how that period of time played out.

Natan said:
I've been in strict isolation in practice in foreign countries for much of that time. Why? Because that's what sutras and tantras say to do. Now I'm in semi isolation. I put my money where my mouth is, Kyle.

krodha wrote:
Your mouth does write a lot of checks.

Natan said:
Right livelihood is pretty important for a would be scholar of dharma, something someone in your line of work might want to think about.

krodha wrote:
I have zero interest in being a scholar of the dharma. And have moved on to other livelihoods. Not that you would know, good friend.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 1st, 2022 at 11:15 PM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:



Sharp said:
Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche is not saying there is multiple Dharmakayas.

Rinpoche is saying that the clarity of a given mind, the Samboghakaya, is individual, like the Sun; however, the Dharmakaya is universal and common to all beings, like the sky. Many suns, one sky.

Rinpoche uses and elaborates on the same metaphor in The Crystal and the Way of Light (note that the sky/essence has been explicitly equated with Dharmakaya earlier in the same chapter):



Elsewhere, Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche also unambiguously clarifies this point:



Hope this is helpful.

krodha wrote:
Whether one says dharmakāya is individual or not ultimately does not matter. Dharmakāya is a generic characteristic, the dharmatā of a mind. Mindstreams are distinct and individual in a conventional sense, and so each mind has a dharmatā. That dharmatā, which is the individual prakrti of that mind, is dharmakāya, which is the emptiness of that mind.

In the same way, the dharmatā of objects, meaning the emptiness of objects, does not need to be “individual,” but again, conventionally, each discrete conventional object has a prakrti, a dharmatā, and that dharmatā is emptiness [śūnyatā].

Emptiness is the same in each discrete, conventional object, but emptiness also renders objects as unfindable. This is how emptiness is non-reductive in nature, it cancels itself out. Like Nāgārjuna says, since there is nothing that is not empty, what is there to be empty? The value of emptiness is the epistemic knowledge of it, that is the soteriological factor in this equation. Dharmakāya is an individual’s totally unobstructed and complete knowledge of emptiness, the total realization of emptiness at the time of buddhahood.

Thus there are contexts at play here. Dharmakāya can be an individual’s realization, yet that realization also is the elimination of the afflictive and cognitive obscurations which cause the ignorance which perceives discrete selves and objects to manifest. As such, individuality is also unfindable and unreal for an awakened person in equipoise. A Buddha knows objects, sentient beings, selves, all dualities are fallacies. Yet again, this is due to a collective absence of characteristics, not a Brahman type singular, ontological nature.

Moreover, Norbu Rinpoche was very consistent in clarifying that everything is not “one” but rather the same in principle or characteristic.

He states in the Song of the Vajra text:

There is a saying of Guru Padmasambhava: “All enlightened beings in that real state are of the same principle; in wisdom all enlightened beings are the same.” This does not mean that all beings become one, but they are one in being of the same principle, the same knowledge, the same condition.

I don’t know how much clearer this can be.

Further, you have teachers like Lopön Tenzin Namdak who literally state you are breaking your samaya by adopting the type of view that some are promulgating in this thread.

He states:

If you don't understand this clearly but think that one mind pervades everything, then that is what is kept and learnt in Vedanta; that is their very strong view. If you believe this then your Damtsig is broken and you go against the meaning of Dzogchen. 

Is that clear? You must make sure (of this point). If you think that (Nature) is one without individual partitions, that this 'one' pervades everything, then that is breaking your Dzogchen Damtsig and goes against the Dzogchen View. Hopefully you have understood clearly.

He clarifies that it is the samaya of the basis called gcig pu, which is actually supposed to be unbreakable, which is violated by asserting that dharmakāya is “one” in the tirthika manner adopted by some here.

In any case, some things to consider.

Natan said:
But here Norbu Rinpoche has his to say... (A FB buddy sent me this, thanks buddy... I won't say his name bc I didn't ask)

https://archive.org/details/the_supreme_source/page/n147

Hard to copy from this format, but paraphrasing the Q&A whether there can be infinite Samantabhadras if there are infinite sentient beings, Rinpoche answers this is a misleading question because it posits an impossible limitation on Samantabhadra which is beyond "individual being."

krodha wrote:
Again, guru Natan, we are able to accomplish going beyond "individual being" without falling headlong into some sort of brahman type view. This is a subtle point, not understood well by many so I don't fault you.

Natan said:
Kyle, your definition of this dry dharmakaya is not how it is taught as essence, nature and compassion in Dzogchen. Dharmakaya is complete with qualities, wisdoms and activities of body, speech and mind. That is just Dzogchen 101. That sort of sutra level analysis is useful for orientation into Buddhist phenomenalogy, but a yogi on the path of tantras gets a few lessons on lists of views and then is introduced to three primordial wisdoms directly.

krodha wrote:
I never said it wasn't. Spare me the straw man argument guru Natan.

Natan said:
Dharmakaya is definitely not just a generic quality in Vajrayana.

krodha wrote:
The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Natan said:
The samaya would also be broken by conceptualizing any views, Buddhist ones, too.

krodha wrote:
This is simply false.

Natan said:
That's what Tilopa said to Naropa. "The conceptual keeping of Samaya violates the ultimate Samaya." And "Proponents of the secret mantra and the pāramitā vehicles, the vinaya, and the other scriptural authorities will not reveal the luminosity of mahāmudrā by expounding on their texts and philosophical traditions"

krodha wrote:
Yet we see prolific scholars in all these traditions who were accomplished yogis and buddhas. These two are not mutually exclusive either.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 1st, 2022 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
krodha wrote:
Whether one says dharmakāya is individual or not ultimately does not matter. Dharmakāya is a generic characteristic...

Sharp said:
There are ten trees in a field. Where are the trees?

One answer is: "each tree possesses the generic characteristic of field-ness."

Another is: "in the field."

Tomatoes, to-mah-toes.

krodha wrote:
I'm not sure what you are talking about, and if I'm being honest, I don't think you know either.

Sharp said:
Further, you have teachers like Lopön Tenzin Namdak who literally state you are breaking your samaya by adopting the type of view that some are promulgating in this thread.

He states:

If you don't understand this clearly but think that one mind pervades everything, then that is what is kept and learnt in Vedanta; that is their very strong view. If you believe this then your Damtsig is broken and you go against the meaning of Dzogchen. 

Is that clear? You must make sure (of this point). If you think that (Nature) is one without individual partitions, that this 'one' pervades everything, then that is breaking your Dzogchen Damtsig and goes against the Dzogchen View. Hopefully you have understood clearly.
It is worth clarifying that Lopon is talking about "Nature", the clarity aspect (gsal-cha), or awareness aspect (rig-cha), which is always particular in the sense of being individual (sems-nyid gcig-pu).

krodha wrote:
No, he is referring to people who hold wrong views like the one you are supporting. This section was quoted by Jean-Luc Achard to address someone making the same error you are, probably Jax or someone.

Sharp said:
Dharmakaya, though, refers to "Essence", the spacious aspect (dbyings-cha), or emptiness aspect (stong-cha), which is always universal in the sense of being all-encompassing (khyab bdal chen-po) and the dimension of all existence (bon-nyid bdings).

This is why Lopon describes the Dharmakaya as “one” which “pervades everywhere” in Bonpo Dzogchen Teachings:

Lopön Tenzin Namdak said:
"Just as there exists the boundless infinity of space that pervades everywhere and, at the same time, there is the space found inside an earthen jar, which takes thereby a specific and particular shape, so it is with the Dharmakaya and the individual sentient being. The one is permanent and the other is imperma­nent and conditioned, temporarily confined by the clay walls of the jar. When the jar is broken, they are only one space."

krodha wrote:
Again, this is just describing the nature of that realization once the absence of characteristics is known. It has nothing to do with some sort of non-buddhist brahman view.
He clarifies that it is the samaya of the basis called gcig pu, which is actually supposed to be unbreakable, which is violated by asserting that dharmakāya is “one” in the tirthika manner adopted by some here.

Sharp said:
Yes, very much agreed, all “Tirthika” views are explicitly refuted in Dzogchen. For example, Dvaita, which holds that each mind is distinct and separate.

krodha wrote:
Right, if you understood convention, then you'd understand how individuality works in this context. But, you probably don't, 99% of people who hold these erroneous views simply do not understand how convention works in buddhadharma.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 1st, 2022 at 9:17 AM
Title: Re: Ghosts
Content:
Nicholas2727 said:
I know from Buddhist cosmology, hungry ghosts is certainly a realm and real, but the discussion came up at work today if we believe in ghosts. What is the Buddhist/your view on this? For some background the conversation was about a house getting sold that was reportedly haunted and then we had some discussion on if we believe in ghosts and it got me curious.

krodha wrote:
Ghosts are called bhūtas or bhoots in India.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 1st, 2022 at 6:59 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
Kai lord said:
Actually the debate about one or multiple mindsteams is nothing new in Buddhism. There was a position called Vijñānādvaitavāda (non dual consciousness or mind) existed as a branch of Yogacara.

Ratnakirti, student of Jñanasrimitra (Gate-scholar of Vikramasila like Naropa), argued about since all of us can only inferred the existence of citta-santāna of others instead of direct perception, mindstreams of others can only be validated empirically in a relative sense.

krodha wrote:
This is true for most Mahāyāna systems. Still, we acknowledge and honor the conventional status of other mindstreams, just as we accept trees, rocks and anything else in a conventional sense.

Kai lord said:
So its a form of relative truth and in the ultimate sense, there can only be ekacitta (one single mindstream).

krodha wrote:
This conclusion is a generous leap, and is ultimately unnecessary even in the face of ultimately negating other mindstreams.

Kai lord said:
He went on in his work, Santānāntaradūṣaṇa, to establish the impossibility for the existence of other external mindstreams and removing boundaries between minds from the perspective of ultimate truth.

krodha wrote:
Again, most Mahāyāna systems conclude this, but that negation doesn’t usually translate to some sort of single mindstream.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 1st, 2022 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
Anders said:
Am I reading this correctly or misunderstanding what is meant by basis - is Namkhai Norbu saying that the Dharmakaya is individual to each sentient being? That there is a multiplicity of dharmakayas?

Sharp said:
Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche is not saying there is multiple Dharmakayas.

Rinpoche is saying that the clarity of a given mind, the Samboghakaya, is individual, like the Sun; however, the Dharmakaya is universal and common to all beings, like the sky. Many suns, one sky.

Rinpoche uses and elaborates on the same metaphor in The Crystal and the Way of Light (note that the sky/essence has been explicitly equated with Dharmakaya earlier in the same chapter):
The sky is not a definable place, has no shape or colour, and no-one can say where it starts or finishes. It is something universal, as is the primordial state of the individual, the void. The base, at the level of the individual, is like the space inside a clay vase, which, even though it is temporarily limited by the shape of the vase, is not different from the space outside. The void condition, which is like empty space, is called essence, and it is beyond all concepts. But in it there is a continuous clarity that manifests in the individual’s thoughts and the various aspects of energy; this clarity is the state of presence, which is like a sun arising in the sky.

The light of the sun is the manifestation of the clarity of the sky; and the sky is the basic condition necessary for the manifestation of the sun's light. So, too, in the sky two, three, four, or any number of suns could arise; but the sky always remains indivisibly one sky. Similarly, every individual's state of presence is unique and distinct, but the void nature of the individual is universal, and common to all beings.
Elsewhere, Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche also unambiguously clarifies this point:
Dharmakaya is all-pervasive and totally infinite, beyond any confines or limitations. This is so for the dharmakaya of all buddhas. There is no individual dharmakaya for each buddha, as there is no individual space for each country. You cannot say there is more than one space, can you? It is all-pervasive and wide open. It’s the same with the dharmakaya level of all buddhas.
Hope this is helpful.

krodha wrote:
Whether one says dharmakāya is individual or not ultimately does not matter. Dharmakāya is a generic characteristic, the dharmatā of a mind. Mindstreams are distinct and individual in a conventional sense, and so each mind has a dharmatā. That dharmatā, which is the individual prakrti of that mind, is dharmakāya, which is the emptiness of that mind.

In the same way, the dharmatā of objects, meaning the emptiness of objects, does not need to be “individual,” but again, conventionally, each discrete conventional object has a prakrti, a dharmatā, and that dharmatā is emptiness [śūnyatā].

Emptiness is the same in each discrete, conventional object, but emptiness also renders objects as unfindable. This is how emptiness is non-reductive in nature, it cancels itself out. Like Nāgārjuna says, since there is nothing that is not empty, what is there to be empty? The value of emptiness is the epistemic knowledge of it, that is the soteriological factor in this equation. Dharmakāya is an individual’s totally unobstructed and complete knowledge of emptiness, the total realization of emptiness at the time of buddhahood.

Thus there are contexts at play here. Dharmakāya can be an individual’s realization, yet that realization also is the elimination of the afflictive and cognitive obscurations which cause the ignorance which perceives discrete selves and objects to manifest. As such, individuality is also unfindable and unreal for an awakened person in equipoise. A Buddha knows objects, sentient beings, selves, all dualities are fallacies. Yet again, this is due to a collective absence of characteristics, not a Brahman type singular, ontological nature.

Moreover, Norbu Rinpoche was very consistent in clarifying that everything is not “one” but rather the same in principle or characteristic.

He states in the Song of the Vajra text:

There is a saying of Guru Padmasambhava: “All enlightened beings in that real state are of the same principle; in wisdom all enlightened beings are the same.” This does not mean that all beings become one, but they are one in being of the same principle, the same knowledge, the same condition.

I don’t know how much clearer this can be.

Further, you have teachers like Lopön Tenzin Namdak who literally state you are breaking your samaya by adopting the type of view that some are promulgating in this thread.

He states:

If you don't understand this clearly but think that one mind pervades everything, then that is what is kept and learnt in Vedanta; that is their very strong view. If you believe this then your Damtsig is broken and you go against the meaning of Dzogchen. 

Is that clear? You must make sure (of this point). If you think that (Nature) is one without individual partitions, that this 'one' pervades everything, then that is breaking your Dzogchen Damtsig and goes against the Dzogchen View. Hopefully you have understood clearly.

He clarifies that it is the samaya of the basis called gcig pu, which is actually supposed to be unbreakable, which is violated by asserting that dharmakāya is “one” in the tirthika manner adopted by some here.

In any case, some things to consider.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 31st, 2022 at 11:06 PM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
Anders said:
Am I reading this correctly or misunderstanding what is meant by basis - is Namkhai Norbu saying that the Dharmakaya is individual to each sentient being? That there is a multiplicity of dharmakayas?

Aryjna said:
Basis is not equivalent to dharmakaya. There are some useful diagrams in some of ChNNR's books, e.g. in the "Crystal".

Ayu said:
What about Nagarjuna's saying "Not one, not many."?
Can't we assume that any single claim without context is bound to sound wrong?

krodha wrote:
“Not one, not many” is describing a generic characteristic, like wetness or heat. Not one, because there are countless discrete instances of wetness and heat. Not many, because the characteristic of wetness and heat are uniform wherever you encounter them.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 31st, 2022 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:


Natan said:
That's why I asked him the question about Brahman so he could refute it. But he affirmed it.

Here's chapter one paragraph one of root tantra of Guhyagarbha



This is the translation approved by Khenpo Namdrol.

Here's the Scotsman Gyurme Dorje's translation of same:



Honestly that should settle the argument.

Holy mother Nyingma has a root tantra? I wonder if that means we should study it... Duhhhhhh

krodha wrote:
These excerpts are referencing an absence of characteristics in the ultimate.

For instance, the Āryākṣayamatinirdeśaṭīkā:

The descriptions from the element of self [atmadhātu] up to the element of all phenomena [sarvadharmadhātu] are the nature of one taste in the ultimate dharmadhātu, emptiness. Since individual characteristics do not exist, all phenomena said to be "equivalent" since they are undifferentiated.

This is just describing the realization of emptiness. Through realizing emptiness, the absence of characteristics is directly known due to the absence of a would-be inherent nature or “svabhāva” i.e., a core entity, to possesses said characteristics. At that time, because entities are realized to be non-arisen, the basis of imputation which was previously mistaken to be an object endowed with specific characteristics is recognized to be a misconception. In that awakened equipoise there are no distinct entities and everything is undifferentiated in the sense that everything lacks an essence in the exact same way. But this does not mean everything is one, single Brahman-like thing.

Natan said:
Not individualized already covers that, but there are descriptions of Brahman which reflect this same definition like posed here by Guhyagarbha. Like permanence, nondifferentiation, absence of characteristics, etc.

krodha wrote:
Yes, superficial similarities that can be confusing for people who don’t know any better.

Natan said:
Also shastras of the sutra class do not really apply to tantras. One uses shastras of the tantra class or Upadesha, because sutra has no idea about the means of liberation in tantra.

krodha wrote:
Yet many, many series of tantras will cite sūtra for clarification very routinely. This does not mean the methods of sūtra and tantra are being conflated.

Natan said:
For example and indestructible Bindu of subtle clear light has no correlate there.

krodha wrote:
It does in the tathāgatagarbha sūtras in a vague way.

Natan said:
And tantras explicitly say their goal is immortality. The clearest description of how the clear light appearances are Buddha's appearances comes from the Kalachakra tantra and commentaries where nonnamteriality is the key distinction, such that the nonmaterial clear light appearances are already not existing or nonexisting.

krodha wrote:
It is the same meaning as in sūtra if you understand it.

Natan said:
The ground and the field is the body and it's faculties who's ultimate nature resides in the source of consciousness in the heart Bindu which is pure, unborn clear light manifesting its qualities in yoga.

krodha wrote:
This does not disqualify sūtra texts from being useful to understand certain principles in context.

Natan said:
In Dzogchen, all the kadag/lhundrub language is subsidiary to the actual experiences of the basis, because it's not a thought process that leads on the experiences, as they do in sutra level, like four immeasurables and Bodhicitta prayers.

krodha wrote:
You need to separate view and method, Nate. And comprehend the notable subsidiary differences when they are applicable. It is not so black and white.

Natan said:
It's yoga and mudra. How are they not existent? Nonmaterial. How are they not nonexistant? They appear like mirages. This is all we need to distinguish form/emptiness, because in the method the mind does not analyse or describe beyond what is necessary to effectuate the method.

krodha wrote:
Still this does not disqualify sūtra citations from being useful in context.

Natan said:
Nonmateriality really gets to the heart of it because we truly cannot identify anything that isn't material.

krodha wrote:
If you don’t understand the view you can’t, sure. But that is your own limitation if the case. Prajñāpāramitā discusses immateriality, it is not a concept exclusive to tantra or ati.

Natan said:
So it's a causal, nondimensional, unquantifiable... everything that has any relationship with materiality except appearing. It natural qualities are revealed in practice not determined by words.

krodha wrote:
If you understand the view, you understand there is no material phenomena anywhere, and your experience of material phenomena is a symptom of your delusion and karma, the path removes these obscurations.

The eight examples of illusion are found throughout all Mahāyāna, there is nothing about immateriality that is exclusive to tantra or ati. Certain views, sure. Various methods, absolutely, but not that concept.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 31st, 2022 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
futerko said:
The unconditioned nature of the base

Malcolm said:
The basis is just your own consciousness. Accept it and move on.


futerko said:
Dzogchen the self-perfected state, p. 53
"The essence is the void, the real condition of the individual and of all phenomena. This base is the condition of all individuals, whether they are aware of it or not, whether they are enlightened or in transmigration."

Does this not suggest the base qua universal is common to all consciousnesses and therefore a priori the condition of any experience?

krodha wrote:
Norbu Rinpoche is pretty clear about the basis being individual:

We speak of a space, or sky. We speak of this space as present within a vase or a room, or the sky. It is the same space. This means the zhi [gzhi] or basis for everyone is the same. The difference we explain in Hinduism or in Dzogchen is the difference between individuals. Because when we say individuals, we mean that I am not you. You are not her. We are not the same. Nor does it mean that when someone is realized, everyone is unified into them and it becomes a kind of ??. That is not what is meant.

Zhi or basis is always composed of a clarity of the individual. This is what we refer to with the example of the sun. If there were ten suns in the sky, we would distinguish ten different suns, and not say that all these ten are one sun. Thus sky and sun are two different things as a way of seeing.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 31st, 2022 at 1:24 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
Natan said:
My direct question was a simple one, Why do siddhis like clairvoyance work? Answer, Because the Dharmakaya is all pervasive. My doubt, But that sounds like Brahman not Buddhism. His reply, Our traditions have much in common.

heart said:
"Dharmakaya is all pervasive" this means that emptiness is all pervasive. No matter how I look at that statement there is nothing strange with it. It certainly don't mean that dharmakaya is equal to brahman.

Natan said:
That's why I asked him the question about Brahman so he could refute it. But he affirmed it.

Here's chapter one paragraph one of root tantra of Guhyagarbha
Homage to the Bhagawan Samantabhadra Transcendent
Fully Endowed Conqueror!

When this speech is taught, the Tathagata-the fully perfected
sambhogakaya buddha, the fully endowed transcendent conqueror of great abundance, and the nature of the vajra enlightened body, speech, and mind of all tathagatas of the ten directions and the fourth time-did not exclude, does not exclude, and will not exclude anything; and his nature is not individualized, but is inseparably undifferentiated.
This is the translation approved by Khenpo Namdrol.

Here's the Scotsman Gyurme Dorje's translation of same:
Thus at the time of this explanation, the Tathagata, genuinely perfect Buddha and transcendent lord, was endowed with great rapture which is the identity of the indestructible body, speech and mind of all the Tathagatas of the ten directions and four times. This is the nature in which all of them without
exception, none excepted and omitting none at all are indivisible without distinction or difference.
Honestly that should settle the argument.

Holy mother Nyingma has a root tantra? I wonder if that means we should study it... Duhhhhhh

krodha wrote:
These excerpts are referencing an absence of characteristics in the ultimate.

For instance, the Āryākṣayamatinirdeśaṭīkā:

The descriptions from the element of self [atmadhātu] up to the element of all phenomena [sarvadharmadhātu] are the nature of one taste in the ultimate dharmadhātu, emptiness. Since individual characteristics do not exist, all phenomena said to be "equivalent" since they are undifferentiated.

This is just describing the realization of emptiness. Through realizing emptiness, the absence of characteristics is directly known due to the absence of a would-be inherent nature or “svabhāva” i.e., a core entity, to possesses said characteristics. At that time, because entities are realized to be non-arisen, the basis of imputation which was previously mistaken to be an object endowed with specific characteristics is recognized to be a misconception. In that awakened equipoise there are no distinct entities and everything is undifferentiated in the sense that everything lacks an essence in the exact same way. But this does not mean everything is one, single Brahman-like thing.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, October 30th, 2022 at 1:34 PM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
Natan said:
They also do not support any particular position which is why lamas can differ on these points. It doesn't say anywhere everyone has their own personal dharmakaya.

krodha wrote:
Dharmakāya is just a tathāgata’s total realization of emptiness at the time of buddhahood. It is a Buddha’s jñāna. The teachings are clear that we all have discrete mindstreams, and dharmakāya is just the prakrti of a mind, not some sort of monolithic nature.

Natan said:
My direct question was a simple one, Why do siddhis like clairvoyance work? Answer, Because the Dharmakaya is all pervasive. My doubt, But that sounds like Brahman not Buddhism. His reply, Our traditions have much in common.

If you think all these doubts about translation apply to this conversation, I would suggest you are sorely mistaken. I'm a first hand account and a reliable witness, because I was educated and know to conduct interviews at a professional level.

krodha wrote:
Yes, you’ve always valued yourself highly, Nate. You don’t have to convince me that you think you’re qualified to make accurate assessments. I know you think that.

Natan said:
I spent 7 years following these DK lamas closely and knew how to ask direct questions  in simple terms to avoid confusion.

krodha wrote:
Yes, we sat in Drubpon Rinpoche’s house together, I’m aware of your history.

Natan said:
I also did not want confusing answers. Maybe he's wrong. I don't say if I think he's right or wrong. All I know is he is realized at a level most lamas are not which is why folks experience so much amazing things around him. He's not just learned with integrity. He's a next level yogi, and the last his kind around.

You want to be dubious for the sake folding arms and appearing intellectual go ahead. People keep saying I didn't understand. Folks have said that about my conversation with HH Taklung Tsetrul Rinpoche and I am sick of it. I took these conversations very seriously. I had to make appointments. I had to prepare. I made sure the answers were clarified and that my understanding of the response was accepted by the lama. So there's definitely no misunderstanding. I personally didn't like his response. I thought he was wrong. It is what he said. My own lama disagreed with his statement.

I've come to think he was influenced by someone not in DK. I later learned he got this from Khenpo Munsel. For a while I thought he was saying this as a skillful means to get people into his message about love and openness. I scrutinized it in scripture and one will be hard-pressed to find anything definitive on the topic of Buddhanature or dharmakaya from any tantra or commentary of the Sarma group.

krodha wrote:
I can’t speak on gsar ma tantras. Nyingma tantras are quite clear though. Sūtra is quite clear, texts like the Tarkajvālā are quite explicit in addressing these topics. In any case, I’m not out to convince you you’re wrong, I just disagree with Garchen Rinpoche on this matter.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, October 30th, 2022 at 4:10 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:



futerko said:
the discussion is simply about interpretation of terminology, no anecdotes!

krodha wrote:
Sure, but no one has cited a text which uses the term “pervasive” so that the context and meaning can be investigated. People are just referencing anectodal evidence, which is meaningless in a discussion like this one.

“Lama X said this,” “X Rinpoche said that.” Did they? Where’s some actual substance?

futerko said:
I'm only speaking from my own view, sorry, I have no idea what any Lama said about it.

krodha wrote:
I think that is the point, none of us know what these Lamas actually said about it. We have firstly, anecdotal evidence, and secondly, the factor of interpretation, thirdly, language barriers, etc., there are myriad variables that can lead to miscommunication, misinterpretation.

Further, Rinpoches and Lamas are fallible according to the tantras, if this was indeed said, one might have to simply consider that this Lama who is otherwise very learned and a person of integrity is just mistaken about this topic. The tantras themselves do not say such things.

Then your personal discretion and personal risk tolerance. Lama X said “such and such”... but the sūtras, śāstras, tantras etc., do not say such things. Okay, well that is on you whether you choose to endorse such a view. Some people in this thread are very comfortable with all of these variables, myself, not so much.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, October 30th, 2022 at 3:53 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
krodha wrote:
Seems this discussion has veered into debating second-hand anectodal taglines, e.g., what “pervasive” means in some conversation that may or may not have been understood correctly.

Cite something concrete.

futerko said:
the discussion is simply about interpretation of terminology, no anecdotes!

krodha wrote:
Sure, but no one has cited a text which uses the term “pervasive” so that the context and meaning can be investigated. People are just referencing anectodal evidence, which is meaningless in a discussion like this one.

“Lama X said this,” “X Rinpoche said that.” Did they? Where’s some actual substance?


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, October 30th, 2022 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices
Content:
krodha wrote:
Seems this discussion has veered into debating second-hand anectodal taglines, e.g., what “pervasive” means in some conversation that may or may not have been understood correctly.

Cite something concrete.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 17th, 2022 at 5:21 AM
Title: Re: The Transmission of the Dzogchen Great Perfection Tantras with Chris Wilkinson
Content:
Malcolm said:
So who can say that the samayas are not critical in Dzogchen teachings?

krodha wrote:
The great chigcharwa, Jules who has evidently exhausted dharmatā.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 13th, 2022 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: Issue with DC teaching and transmission
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
He has way more than Shamatha courses on there.

krodha wrote:
I suppose my main issue revolves around the preservation of the sanctity of transmission and also being mindful of what could potentially be a slippery slope in terms of being loose with transmission.

Once we start making concessions in certain areas, this really opens the door to people assuming concessions are acceptable and where they end up from there is anyone’s guess. Why deviate from the standard that protects the integrity of the transmission?


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 13th, 2022 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: Issue with DC teaching and transmission
Content:
krodha wrote:
I’ve never received mennagde teachings that were not prefaced with a clear yet succinct history lesson prior to the transmission.

This was Norbu Rinpoche’s attitude as well. When I visited Tenerife, Norbu Rinpoche gave trekchö and thögal teachings. They were originally intended to be his own Longsal cycle, but after all the attendees arrived, there were hundreds of people. Rinpoche felt uneasy about giving the Longsal transmission, so he instead gave transmission on Adzom Drukpa’s cycle related to the same teachings. He did that to protect the Löngsal cycle related to those teachings, because his wish was for only those who were stable in the view to attend. He even joked the first day, stating “it is so nice to see so many people stable in the view.” Being completely facetious. He knew people were just there to grasp at “high teachings.”

People complained, and after a certain amount of protest Rinpoche rightfully or wrongfully, reluctantly gave in and offered the lung to the Löngsal versions so that attendees could at the very least obtain and read the text.

That is how serious he took the transmission. I don’t see the same level of care coming from the DC Community today, and I can only conclude something was lost on them, as hyperbolic as that may be.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 13th, 2022 at 3:57 AM
Title: Re: Issue with DC teaching and transmission
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
I guess a related question is, given the current state towards transmission in the DC, what do you all claim SMS teachers should do differently, in succinct, non-hyperbolic terms?

krodha wrote:
I assume they can teach what they’ve learned in The Precious Vase text up to whatever section is equivalent to the level of SMS they are.

Certainly does not involve mennagde instruction, which trekchö is technically classified as.

I’ve never heard of any credible teachers giving the intimate instructions to uninitiated people. Mennagde is only found within the continuum of lineage transmission, and those who receive said transmission will be informed which cycle, which terma etc., the teachings they receive are from, there is never any ambiguity.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 13th, 2022 at 3:50 AM
Title: Re: Issue with DC teaching and transmission
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
You guys talk as if you have some incontrovertible argument that this is a horrible thing. There are non-dc teachers who do things similar to this as well, you don’t have to agree with it, and I have my own misgivings.

The idea that there has been some iron clad argument made and people should just agree though? Naw, you are way overestimating the clarity of the arguments being made against this approach.

krodha wrote:
There are non-DC teachers who teach men ngag sde without transmission?

Johnny Dangerous said:
They would be semde or equivalent to semde I think, but I really don’t understand how/why that would alter your complaint, semde  involves a pointing out or introduction, why would the issue be different?

krodha wrote:
What is equivalent to sem sde? B. Allan Wallace teaching śamatha?


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 13th, 2022 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: Issue with DC teaching and transmission
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
You guys talk as if you have some incontrovertible argument that this is a horrible thing. There are non-dc teachers who do things similar to this as well, you don’t have to agree with it, and I have my own misgivings.

The idea that there has been some iron clad argument made and people should just agree though? Naw, you are way overestimating the clarity of the arguments being made against this approach.

krodha wrote:
There are non-DC teachers who teach men ngag sde without transmission?


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 13th, 2022 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: Issue with DC teaching and transmission
Content:


oldbob said:
--- and for those in the retreat, the Transmission continues without any conception of responsibility or no responsibility.

It is very nice to see the Transmission continue and to share that space within the Dzogchen Community.

krodha wrote:
Bob, we really should not be so desperate for some semblance of a DC transmission lineage that we ignore what the teachings actually say in order to provide table scraps for people.

If these things are not approached with care then we are being irresponsible and run the risk of harming others. This also has the potential to add insult to injury with the already present issues in the DC.

1970. You really are a veteran of the Dzogchen Community. Present prior to my own birth even. I very much so would like to relate to senior students like you for the wisdom you can offer based on your history and experience. But these cliches such as a freedom from responsibility or lack thereof, especially in relation to lineage transmission, are a disservice to the reality of this situation.

If you hold the DC and Norbu Rinpoche’s teachings dearly in your heart as I know you do, just as I do, then please think on these things and perhaps reconsider your stance on this matter.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 10th, 2022 at 1:36 PM
Title: Re: Better late than never
Content:
krodha wrote:
That is not a lineage transmission. People completely outside the mandala may have been attending Elias’ teaching. Your attitude towards that prospect is a bit reckless an brazen and is a notable departure from your past views, which revolved around a theme of strong interest in preserving lineage.

Passing By said:
So.....Is it ok for people with Dzogchen transmission from other gurus and lineages besides ChNNR to attend this?

(I am not DC. I have not attended yet, busy the past few days. Yes, I practice Dzogchen in other lineages)

krodha wrote:
Yes, although while Elias is capable of being a teacher, it seems he has one foot in and one foot out on this, which is the point of contention that this issue rests upon. He is giving teachings on the intimate instructions without giving direct introduction. Thus, is he acting as a teacher? A qualified teacher would provide the proper transmission start to finish in order to be certain that everyone in attendance receives the teachings in a thorough and effective way.

Even those who have obtained transmission from Norbu Rinpoche, or any other lineage, should again receive a complete teaching from Elias. Including direct introduction in some fashion. It would be one thing if there were some measures taken to vet attendees, so that Elias was ensuring that those in attendance have all received proper transmission, but this isn't the case. What is worse, the advertisement plainly states that those who wish to attend do not need transmission so long as they intend to receive it at a later time. Who in their right mind came up with such a ludicrous idea? And who are these people who thought it was a good idea to endorse it? Is this really what these people are doing with Norbu Rinpoche's legacy? Breaking their own samaya and corrupting the dependent origination of those in attendance with (hopefully) sincere interest who have not yet received transmission?

This is a charade. Again, I rather like Elias, but this really is absurd. If the DC is endorsing this then they have failed to uphold a precious legacy.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 10th, 2022 at 10:09 AM
Title: Re: Better late than never
Content:
oldbob said:
Again – we differ.

krodha wrote:
What do the tantras say? They don’t say it is acceptable to teach trekchö to uninitiated individuals in cases where people’s opinions on the matter “differ.” The tantras actually state that the consequences are quite severe.

oldbob said:
I have nothing to say about who can or cannot give Direct Introduction. I can speak of my experience.

“For me, the experience was as traditional as any I’ve received.  I have nothing to say and couldn’t if I wanted to.”

Perhaps that is the integrity of Transmission.

krodha wrote:
That is not a lineage transmission. People completely outside the mandala may have been attending Elias’ teaching. Your attitude towards that prospect is a bit reckless an brazen and is a notable departure from your past views, which revolved around a theme of strong interest in preserving lineage.

You were just feigning this entire time?


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 10th, 2022 at 9:16 AM
Title: Re: Better late than never
Content:



oldbob said:
Respectfully – we differ.

For me, the experience was as traditional as any I’ve received.  I have nothing to say and couldn’t if I wanted to.

Full measure and no complaints or misunderstandings.  The book and the Transpersonal stuff don’t get in the way of Transmission and catching the view in words – which is not that easy to do.

Information and form are not the key points of Dzogchen.

Conveying Instant Presence and the Secondary Practices are.

krodha wrote:
Elias gave direct introduction then?

As one of the most vocal proponents of a proper continuity of Norbu Rinpoche’s lineage I’m surprised that you’re so easily persuaded to eschew the integrity of transmission.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 10th, 2022 at 8:03 AM
Title: Re: Better late than never
Content:



oldbob said:
The 75-80 students who are learning Tregchod quite happily would disagree with anyone criticizing Elias.  I am one of these students and I disagree. I've been doing Dzogchen since 1970.

I've studied with many Dzogchen Masters and Elias is Teaching Dzogchen quite successfully in his own style.
Those who attend the retreat are getting the benefit.
Each to their own.

krodha wrote:
These “teacher’s” personal style shouldn’t come at the expense of the established traditional guidelines we’ve had in place for centuries.

I like Elias apart from some weird transpersonal nonsense he dilutes Dzogchen teachings with, but the half measures with direct introduction are disturbing and should be disturbing to you as well, Bob.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 7th, 2022 at 7:28 AM
Title: Re: The Transmission of the Dzogchen Great Perfection Tantras with Chris Wilkinson
Content:
gelukman said:
You are able to transmit dzogchen tantras your self after you have received the transmission.

krodha wrote:
Oh boy.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, October 4th, 2022 at 9:56 AM
Title: Re: Is Frank Yang an arhat?
Content:
krodha wrote:
The arhathood claim is whatever, but in terms of just insight in general, I’ve heard this guy has some degree of credibility.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 22nd, 2022 at 11:41 PM
Title: Re: Trekcho rigpa vs thogal rigpa
Content:
Jules 09 said:
It is said that when the expression (display) dawns as sherab, as knowledge - when the expression knows its own nature - it is liberated, there is freedom. When the expression moves as thought, as thinking, it is bewildered - there is delusion.
In this distinction lies the whole difference.

krodha wrote:
Thought is only the utmost tip of the iceberg of delusion. The connate avidyā underlies imputation, which is non-recognition of the nature of mind and phenomena. This issue is therefore far deeper than you seem to realize. Your constant railing against thought is indicative of a view that needs quite a bit of refinement, mostly because it will cause you to conflate mere clarity with jñāna, or prajñā as you mention directly above. A major error.

As others have mentioned, these discussions are an opportunity for you to learn, hopefully that isn’t completely squandered.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 22nd, 2022 at 5:44 AM
Title: Re: Trekcho rigpa vs thogal rigpa
Content:
Jules 09 said:
Perhaps we can agree that cessation of mind (sem).., means cessation of mental events; i.e. thinking, rnam rtog...

krodha wrote:
That is not what the cessation of mind means.

Thoughts can cease in gnas pa and sems can still be fully in tact, which is why gnas pa is considered a deviation.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, September 20th, 2022 at 5:15 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Stages
Content:
heart said:
Ultimately thoughts don't even exist as Khenchen Namdrol Rinpoche taught recently.

/magnus

krodha wrote:
Yeah, the “gnas gyu rig gsum” or division of the view into rigpa as a passive knower of the presence or absence of thought, is something provisional that is eventually seen as false once thoughts are realized to be non-arisen. But that is a later insight.

Not telling you this, but for the overall discussion, we have to work within the confines of the trio of “stillness, movement and knowing” to sort of retrain the mind and create the fertile circumstances for that latter insight (or awakening) to occur.

My point being that some are putting the cart before the horse on this one.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, September 20th, 2022 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Stages
Content:
krodha wrote:
Also the dgongs pa zang thal states, per Mipham:

The vacant state of not thinking anything, is itself the cause of ignorance and confusion.

Prefacing the citation of this quote with a warning that fixation on a thought-free state is deviating into taking the ālaya as the goal. Jigme Lingpa says if you make this error you will be like a blind man wandering in the desert.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, September 20th, 2022 at 2:58 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Stages
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
My assumption has always been that in the Dzogchen view namtog is a result of Marigpa. I am not sure I have ever seen this said directly, but probably something close?

krodha wrote:
Thought is fundamentally related to the movement of vāyu. The more uncoordinated the vāyu is, the more rapid and unruly the torrent of thought will be.

Ma rig pa occurs in a few ways, there are three marigpas, which are three primary aspects of marigpa, but yes, one aspect does involve this activity of imputation where thought sort of objectifies itself, and clarity mistakes itself for an inner subjective “self.” And with that, the antithesis of self likewise manifests, which is external phenomena and so on.

Karmavāyu mixing with rtsal is the technical explanation.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, September 20th, 2022 at 2:26 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Stages
Content:
Jules 09 said:
Because if they do, you would be up to your neck in sem, all the time.

krodha wrote:
Hope you do realize that you indeed are “up to your neck” in sems and avidyā, all the time, until you begin to access the prajñā infused samādhi of an ārya.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, September 20th, 2022 at 1:35 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Stages
Content:
Jules 09 said:
In Tulku Urgyen's books he says repeatedly that there is no thought in rigpa. And in my experience of receiving many teachings from Chokyi Nyima, I never heard him say that there is thought in rigpa.

krodha wrote:
Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche and his sons also talk about different modalities of rigpa, two main types in their expositions.

Rigpa matures as the path develops. Every modality is part of the same continuum of rigpa, but not every modality shares the same characteristics.

Our mundane rigpa we start with occurs with the movement of thoughts, and you have to employ the view to develop that rigpa, that process includes working with the movement of thought in a skillful way.

Context is very important, and so is a qualified teacher you can interact with frequently, or at least periodically.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, September 19th, 2022 at 10:33 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Stages
Content:
Jules 09 said:
Without thoughts, who or what, is there to liberate?

krodha wrote:
The neo-Advaitan trap.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, September 19th, 2022 at 8:55 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Stages
Content:
Jules 09 said:
If you have recognized the First Vital Point, you will know that there was never any self to be liberated.

krodha wrote:
The first “vital point” is identifying rig pa as mere clarity. The self is not seen through until the full measure of rigpa is actualized (or trekchö is realized), and isn’t an unbroken insight until buddhahood. Therefore your assertion here does not make sense.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, September 18th, 2022 at 6:37 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Stages
Content:
Jules 09 said:
If there is still the belief that there is an actual practitioner there, who is experiencing the arising of concepts and engaging in the activity of "not blocking" them, then yes, I guess that is samsara. By which I mean, that it is not rig pa.

krodha wrote:
The presence or absence of the agent is cognitive in nature, it is not a belief.

You experience a self, and the subsequent bifurcation of inner and outer yings at all times within avidyā. Even if you attempt to delude yourself otherwise.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, September 18th, 2022 at 5:23 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Stages
Content:
Jules 09 said:
So, you have a duality between you and the basis.

krodha wrote:
That is the reality of your experience in avidyā. You will only be free of that once you reach the first bhūmi, and even then, that freedom from a grasping agent will only persist as long as your equipoise lasts.

Only Buddhas who have accomplished the so-called transcendent state [dgongs pa] are truly free from such things.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, September 18th, 2022 at 3:30 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Stages
Content:
Jules 09 said:
It has given me more context to understand the approach to practice that some of the people here might be following.

krodha wrote:
There is no alternative.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 16th, 2022 at 2:57 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Stages
Content:
Jules 09 said:
I was under the impression that we were discussing the "view" of trekchö. It was you who brought up the subject in the first place:

krodha wrote:
Yes, trekchö.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 16th, 2022 at 8:14 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Stages
Content:
Jules 09 said:
Sure.
But you will never "stabilize the view" by making effort.

krodha wrote:
This is a misconception.

You have to use a great amount of effort to stabilize the view and then effort is also applied in integrating specific characteristics of your experience.

If this is done correctly, then the view will develop and you will begin to have glimpses of the actual natural state. From there, you must continue to cultivate the view so that you can stabilize the instances of awakened equipoise that manifest. This takes the entire path to accomplish, and at every turn effort is required.

The actual meaning of “effortlessness” in these teachings is related to the nature of the postures, gazes and breathing. Then further, the “effortlessness” involved with stabilizing self-liberation in the context of the view, which is not easy despite the so-called “effortless” characteristics involved in the practice.

This is a very nuanced topic. But the important takeaway is that without skillfully applied effort your practice will never develop.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 16th, 2022 at 6:52 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Stages
Content:
Jules 09 said:
There are so many methods, but making effort is not one of them.

krodha wrote:
Effortlessness has a very specific meaning in ati, it does not mean you do not make effort in practice.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 16th, 2022 at 6:29 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Stages
Content:
Jules 09 said:
As concepts are liberated upon arising, we have nothing to hold on to, and take "face to face in the future."

krodha wrote:
Concepts are only liberated upon arising within the continuum of the view. If we are distracted, then concepts are proliferating endlessly, in what is called “black diffusion” by some.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 16th, 2022 at 5:51 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Stages
Content:
Jules 09 said:
Why do you mention this?

krodha wrote:
The correct view is a balance between stillness [gnas pa], movement [gyu ba] and the knowing [shes pa] of the two. There is a method to it, and in the beginning it takes effort.

Jules 09 said:
- So ?

krodha wrote:
You claimed earlier that only some people will utilize the movement of thought in their view. But in truth this is a universal aspect of the ati view which sets it apart from śamatha.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 16th, 2022 at 5:46 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Stages
Content:
Jules 09 said:
Why do you mention this?

krodha wrote:
The correct view is a balance between stillness [gnas pa], movement [gyu ba] and the knowing [shes pa] of the two. There is a method to it, and in the beginning it takes effort.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 16th, 2022 at 4:26 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Stages
Content:
Zoey85 said:
it's surprising that people still insist on abiding within the gap between thoughts, or trying to continue in a thought-free state.

krodha wrote:
They don’t understand the deviation of cultivating nepa [gnas pa]. Norbu Rinpoche said people who practice with that view are “dancing on the books of teachings without having any experience of real practice.”


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 16th, 2022 at 4:20 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Stages
Content:
Jules 09 said:
Yes, I am aware that there is a practice of 'taking thoughts as the path' using them as fuel. But, I would suggest that it is an instruction that a teacher would give to a specific student, or a specific group of students at a particular time , *when it is appropriate* for the individuals concerned. If a person were to attempt that practice too soon, and without personal guidance, they could go seriously astray.
But, you seem to think that, just because that is your current practice (maybe? I don't know), then it should apply to other practitioners too, and I think that this is a mistake on your part.

krodha wrote:
That is literally the “view” that is implemented for all ati practitioners. You aren’t practicing trekchö otherwise.

Jules 09 said:
Another observation one might make is: Yes, that sounds like a good practice, but how long do you want to do that for?

krodha wrote:
Until the view is stabilized.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 4th, 2022 at 6:43 AM
Title: Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"
Content:
Jules 09 said:
"Buddhism is not claiming that there is nothing existing 'out there'.
It's simply saying: You have no access to it.
What you have is your experience.
Each of us has to work with our own experience."

- James Low,
Doing Less, Experiencing More. (@4:15:29)


krodha wrote:
Buddhism also is not saying there are noumenal svabhāvas “out there.”


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 3rd, 2021 at 4:10 AM
Title: Re: Realization and realized masters
Content:
clyde said:
So, please, are there living Zen teachers that you believe are realized and if so, who?

krodha wrote:
You seem dissatisfied with every reply to this question.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, December 2nd, 2021 at 3:45 AM
Title: Re: Realization and realized masters
Content:
clyde said:
And if there are realized Zen Masters (or teachers in other Buddhist traditions), who are they?

krodha wrote:
Meido Moore Roshi, who has posted here in the past is very clear on the view, and though I’m not clairvoyant, and he is very modest, his presentation and understanding of the path are indicative of someone with some degree of genuine insight or realization.

Certainly a reliable resource as far as Zen goes.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 29th, 2021 at 9:22 AM
Title: Re: Awareness, and consciousness, (rig pa) ... oh my!
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
No, there is no subconscious in some Jungian sense, but there are certainly latent tendencies in people’s mind streams of which they are not fully aware, I mean that is baked into the whole deal.

That is all that is required for there to functionally be a ‘subconscious’…some definitive theory is not needed.

krodha wrote:
In the past when this idea came up here it was clarified that it is antithetical to Buddhist teachings, and that these processes are conscious in nature, never subconscious or unconscious.

Johnny Dangerous said:
The only way for that to be so is to engage in a pointlessly semantic argument about what "subconscious" means, which is exactly what I recall from that conversation.

Ignorance is the primary klesha, as such, there is most certainly a spectrum of experience or at least latent tendencies unavailable to the default settings of the samsaric mind, that shouldn't be controversial. If the vision of sentient beings is any way occluded by ignorance (which all teachings pretty much agree on), then there is something which is at least provisionally "subconscious". Similarly, beings are generally unaware of being moved around by the winds of Karma.

Whether or not we decide to turn that into a noun, or compare it to this or that theory is another question.

So really, if someone wants to make this objection, they should first define exactly what is meant by "subconscious" in the first place. FYI there is not some unified answer to that in Western Psychology at all, there is a wide range of sometimes contradictory views on what that term means.

krodha wrote:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=298160#p298160

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=470411#p470411


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 29th, 2021 at 9:02 AM
Title: Re: Awareness, and consciousness, (rig pa) ... oh my!
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
No, there is no subconscious in some Jungian sense, but there are certainly latent tendencies in people’s mind streams of which they are not fully aware, I mean that is baked into the whole deal.

That is all that is required for there to functionally be a ‘subconscious’…some definitive theory is not needed.

krodha wrote:
In the past when this idea came up here it was clarified that it is antithetical to Buddhist teachings, and that these processes are conscious in nature, never subconscious or unconscious.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 29th, 2021 at 8:26 AM
Title: Re: Question about dependent origination
Content:
Sherab said:
What I was asking is whether the thing being referred to in "fundamentally there is no thing", only refers to the mental image in the mind and not to the physical thing from which the perceiving mind generates its image, or the physical thing or both.  We all know that the mental image of a thing is NOT a true representation of the physical thing.  The mental image is only a functional represention of the physical thing.  Since it is only a functional representation, that thing being represented does not truly exist.  But the physical thing out there could still truly exist.  Therefore how the thing in "fundamentally there is no thing" is interpreted needs clarification.

krodha wrote:
This phenomena-noumena dichotomy is not found in Buddhist teachings. Positing a noumena beyond your senses is positing a svabhāva.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 29th, 2021 at 8:01 AM
Title: Re: Awareness, and consciousness, (rig pa) ... oh my!
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
What would correspond to the western concept of ‘subconscious’ I don’t mean dream state, but rather, that we are subconsciously aware of lots of things in our environment, even our bodies.

krodha wrote:
There’s no subconscious in Buddhist teachings.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 25th, 2021 at 9:26 AM
Title: Re: Question about dependent origination
Content:
Rick said:
In Chapter 1 of the MMK, Nagarjuna appears to argue against <a certain understanding of> causality. But he never argues against dependent origination, quite the contrary: emptiness and dependent origination are definitive teachings.

So, Nagarjunaphiles, if causality is kaput, how in tarnation does dependent arising work?

krodha wrote:
Dependent origination works in a conventional sense, like Buddhapālita confirms in his commentary on Nāgārjuna’s MMK.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 21st, 2021 at 9:24 AM
Title: Re: Tim Dillon is the funniest person alive.
Content:
cky said:
He's funny, but I don't see the point in that particular bit.

krodha wrote:
Apparently his aunt sued him so I don’t think it’s a bit.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 19th, 2021 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: Tim Dillon is the funniest person alive.
Content:
krodha wrote:
His ongoing battle with his aunt is hilarious and also brutal.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, November 13th, 2021 at 9:34 AM
Title: Re: Break connection to non-Buddhist paths
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
If you practice properly, everything becomes part of the Dharma path. You can learn from Jesus or the Vedas, or Ben Franklin, Confucius, Pee Wee Herman, even Donald Trump.
If you have taken refuge, then you are a Buddhist, and you just pour everything into that.

krodha wrote:
Not sure that’s how it works.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 12th, 2021 at 8:24 AM
Title: Re: If there's no self, why does karma matter?
Content:
Nalanda said:
Without the self/person, why does karma matter? Upon rebirth, how does this karma connect or transfer to that new person? Isn't that unfair? How does it even connect the previous person's karma to the reborn person?

krodha wrote:
Because the afflictive dependent origination that gives rise to the fetter of selfhood is a completely agentless process.

Karma connects because there is a discrete conventional mindstream that is subject to afflictive conditions.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 12th, 2021 at 8:17 AM
Title: Re: Is impermanence the same or different than emptiness?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Deluded beings perceive impermanence because they experience entities and processes that arise, decay and eventually cease.

Awakened beings perceive non-arising in relation to entities, which is the emptiness of entities. This renders the perception of impermanence impossible because without entities that arise in the first place there is no decay or cessation.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 11th, 2021 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: I'm confused about Buddhist arguments against a creator God and what that entails for buddha activity?
Content:
krodha wrote:
That is all well and good, but I do not have to accept gzhan stong as a view in order to accept tathāgatagarbha.

Matt J said:
I am curious as to how you would distinguish the two.

krodha wrote:
As far as I can tell the gzhan stong interpretation of tathāgatagarbha is that it is (i) truly existent, (ii) replete with all qualities and fully formed from the very beginning, and (iii) is absolutely distinct from all relative phenomena.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, November 10th, 2021 at 2:53 AM
Title: Re: I'm confused about Buddhist arguments against a creator God and what that entails for buddha activity?
Content:
Schrödinger’s Yidam said:
As I’ve just said said, “some do, some don’t.”
As I’ve said, some do, some don’t.
All my bases are covered.

krodha wrote:
You keep saying this, but “some do, some don’t” do what?

In re-reading this it isn’t clear what you are asserting some do and some don’t do. This “some do, some don’t” response was given as a rebuttal to various points. Unclear which point you are intending to address.

The only system that resembles the view you appear to be advocating for is gzhan stong.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, November 10th, 2021 at 1:20 AM
Title: Re: I'm confused about Buddhist arguments against a creator God and what that entails for buddha activity?
Content:
Schrödinger’s Yidam said:
Although there are plenty Indian Madhyamaka adjacent texts that discuss jñāna and so on.

To add, there are also many systems that are sympathetic towards Madhyamaka logic which say jñāna can be just as potent and viable without having to be truly established.
Some do, some don’t. In the context of this discussion “some do” has been contested. That’s the point I was addressing.

We’ve been over this many times in the past. I just don’t get why this point needs to be refreshed intermittently.

krodha wrote:
You and I have never “been over this,” unless you had some other handle in the past.

“Some do (address jñāna) has been contested?” How? Texts such as the Ārya-akṣayamati-nirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra which features an entire section on vijñāna and jñāna, for example, are Indian Madhyamaka adjacent in the sense that they are considered to be foundational to that system of dialectics in certain ways.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 8th, 2021 at 4:52 PM
Title: Re: I'm confused about Buddhist arguments against a creator God and what that entails for buddha activity?
Content:
undefineable said:
Buddhism makes the definite ontological claim that only appearances are real.

krodha wrote:
I’ve never seen such a claim.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 8th, 2021 at 7:17 AM
Title: Re: I'm confused about Buddhist arguments against a creator God and what that entails for buddha activity?
Content:
krodha wrote:
People in this thread can engage in conjecture about hidden ontological principles until the day they die, but that isn’t buddhadharma.

undefineable said:
Buddhadharma does limit itself in this way, the point being that "hidden ontology", as long as it remains hidden (meaning 'until the day they die'), doesn't in and of itself help beings deal with their conditions on a psychological level. That's why a practitioner does, and can certainly afford to, take certain things 'on trust' to begin with at least[?]

krodha wrote:
With insight into emptiness the perceived substantial nature of any alleged ontology is put to rest for good.

That is a massive advantage rather than a limitation.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 8th, 2021 at 4:23 AM
Title: Re: I'm confused about Buddhist arguments against a creator God and what that entails for buddha activity?
Content:


undefineable said:
And although there are Buddhist texts that suggest that craving is the root not only of dukkha but of all reality as well, this doesn't explain how a) the external roots of the objects of craving manage to make an appearance,

Malcolm said:
They arise from causes and conditions. This is not mysterious.

PadmaVonSamba said:
the appearance they make, meaning what we perceive, is actually only to the degree of that craving itself, a reflection you might say, of that craving, although not in the gross sense of ‘craving’ lake extreme desire, but in the very subtle sense arising from the self/other dichotomy: as we imagine a self, we experience phenomena as existing purely In relation to that imagined-self.

krodha wrote:
Appearances you perceive are just inaccurately known. All of samsara arises because you have an inaccurate knowledge of appearances.

This is why buddhadharma is based on epistemic soteriology. Not ontological soteriology.

People in this thread can engage in conjecture about hidden ontological principles until the day they die, but that isn’t buddhadharma.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 20th, 2021 at 7:55 AM
Title: Re: Killing animals... Is it acceptable in Dzogchen
Content:
Michael126unknown said:
Can we kill or hunt if we are a Dzogchen practitioner, or should we avoid killing animals unless it is necessary?
Further, may the meat/corpse from a dying animal be given in any type of offering practice (At least visualizing it as offered) or would it be disrespectful (not sure if this is the right term) toward the deities?
Thank you.

krodha wrote:
In the context of the samayas of body, speech and mind,  taking life is the heaviest transgression related to the samaya of the body. If you are a serious Dzogchen practitioner it is best to avoid intentional killing.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 11th, 2021 at 5:53 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Virgo said:
Based on the fracture patterns and the crater effect I was able to determine which shot came first.

Virgo

krodha wrote:
Fastest gun in the west.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 11th, 2021 at 5:33 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Sherab Rigdrol said:
Hameed Ali is one of many pseudo intellectual, narcissistic elites who have created their own “spiritual system” based purely on their own delusion and has zero basis in wisdom.

I wish him nothing but the worst for trying to exploit and sully the stainless activity, love, wisdom and compassion of ChNN.

Tata1 said:
But yeah i dont even know why we discuss this kind of people. Who cares?

krodha wrote:
Karma will dictate people’s involvement with Hameed and others of his ilk, but it is still fruitful to discuss these pseudo-teachers because it might offer the opportunity for someone on the fence to dodge a bullet.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 2nd, 2021 at 2:43 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
oldbob said:
My 2 cents,

There are many kinds of Qualified Teacher.  There are many uses of these words.

In Dzogchen, the Qualified Teacher is the one who introduces you to your Instant presence, to your realized mind, and then teaches you the Secondary Practices that support and stabilize this experience.

Sometimes this happens in strange ways.  Read the lives of the Mahasiddhas.

The most Qualified Teacher that I met in my life was ChNN.

Everything he did and taught was from the place of being integrated 24/7 in non-dual Ati Dzogchen awareness.

Therefore everything he did and taught was authentic Dzogchen.  Therefore he was a Qualified Teacher.

Shouldn’t new students be allowed to experience Dzogchen as was taught for new students by the Qualified Teacher?

Maybe the new students should have a choice as to how they learn Dzogchen in the Dzogchen Community.  All of the original retreats of ChNN (from 1976 on) were recorded on audio and since 1982 – on video.  Most of these early retreats are also transcribed into several languages.

The SMS Instructors are only qualified to give Instruction up to the level of SMS that they were approved for by ChNN.  I don't think any of them claim to be a Qualified Teacher, yet some of them put themselves forward as "Qualified SMS Instructor" as if this is the same as "Qualified Teacher."

Most of these "Qualified SMS Instructors" are only qualified to teach the base level of the 10 levels of the SMS, having answered a few base-level questions and received an hour or so of "Teacher Training."  Perhaps it is not ideal to have the newcomers contact with the Dzogchen Teachings of ChNN to come through contact only with "Qualified SMS Instructors."

Since there is no current Qualified Teacher, doesn’t it make sense to arrange for the newcomers to be taught Dzogchen directly by the one Qualified Teacher that everyone agrees on: ChNN.

This is really obvious, yet in the 3 years of mourning, many of the would-be “Qualified Teachers” have created little courses for themselves and a few old students, and are completely happy giving a few teachings to these few old students.  Now, this same system is being set up for the newcomers.

Isn’t it better to allow the newcomers to hear and see the original words and translations of when ChNN first taught Dzogchen in the West?

Isn’t it better to rely directly on ChNN and his Teachings?

Shouldn't the greater Dzogchen Community take responsibility for the newcomers instead of leaving them with a few courses from Base level SMS Instructors.

The Instructors can still be there to answer questions and to guide practices but isn't it better to allow the content of the course to be provided by the Qualified Teacher?

All best wishes,

Bob Kragen


krodha wrote:
Much of this feels like a call to rearrange furniture on the deck of a sinking ship.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 1st, 2021 at 4:34 PM
Title: Re: Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism
Content:
krodha wrote:
To recap: There is no first cause in these teachings. There is no external force. We do not take refuge in any samsaric being. We negate universals. This is an atheist dharma.

nightbloom said:
If you've read through this thread, you'll have seen that I already addressed this.

krodha wrote:
If you still disagree that buddhadharma is atheist after considering those points, then you have failed to understand those points.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 1st, 2021 at 4:08 PM
Title: Re: Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism
Content:
nightbloom said:
Scroll up, see my clarification. If you still think it's absurd, say why.

krodha wrote:
To recap: There is no first cause in these teachings. There is no external force. We do not take refuge in any samsaric being. We negate universals. This is an atheist dharma.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 1st, 2021 at 3:54 PM
Title: Re: Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm said:
Dependent origination is the Buddha’s central insight. If one is going to compare Buddhadharma with any other thought, it has to be in light of dependent origination. Any other comparisons are at best superficial and trivial.

nightbloom said:
I couldn't disagree more...

krodha wrote:
Absurd.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, September 26th, 2021 at 9:28 AM
Title: Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?
Content:
Supramundane said:
You seem to be opting for a no self. Isn't there room for a non-self?

What about our Buddhanature....

krodha wrote:
“Non-self,” “not-self” and “the Buddha never said there is no self” are Thanissaro Bikkhu’s ideas. He treats anātman as an apophatic exercise, rather than what it actually is: a dharma seal. Many Theravadins parrot him and spread these misconceptions around the Internet.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 24th, 2021 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
oldbob said:
Also, this new transmission and Direct Introduction Guideline appears to be directly in opposition to the guidelines provided in the two communications of 2016 as to who can teach. In the two communications of 2016, it is clearly stated that anyone who has accomplished a practice can teach that practice. These criteria were not limited to SMS instructors but were applied to everyone. Also, the two communications of 2016 did not state at all that Transmission and Direct introduction were not included in the permissions given in the 2016 communications. Therefore Transmission and Direct Introduction are included and are allowed to be taught by " anyone who has accomplished that practice."

krodha wrote:
Better to just follow the guidelines from texts like the Rigpa Rangshar regarding who is qualified to give and receive teachings, including direct introduction.

Gambling one’s path on anything less is a fool’s errand.

The teaching will degrade quickly if we allow any moron who declares they have “accomplished a teaching” to give transmission to others. It will be the blind leading the blind.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 23rd, 2021 at 6:48 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
The thing is, part of the DC is a cult

Malcolm said:
There, fixed it for you.

krodha wrote:
It is rumored this general sentiment is shared by the aforementioned prodigal son.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 23rd, 2021 at 2:53 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
tinylocusta said:
Regarding Yeshi. It is obvious to me that many people seriously underestimate Him... I won't elaborate more as everybody knows He doesn't like when one speaks of Him in this way and I want to respect that, but seriously, people need to realize how extremely lucky we are to have such a person alive


krodha wrote:
The concerned parties in this thread would probably feel a great deal “luckier” if Yeshi actually demonstrated interest in leading the DC.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 23rd, 2021 at 1:17 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Dorje Shedrub said:
Does anyone know why Yeshe would require a non-disclosure agreement? I don't understand this.

krodha wrote:
Perhaps he has been advised by counsel to try and conceal his statements and activities with the DC so that it does not have some sort of potentially negative effect on his professional life.

He’s always seemed to have a conflicted relationship with his father’s legacy and community.

He may find that much to his dismay, in some countries NDA’s aren’t all that enforceable.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 18th, 2021 at 3:34 PM
Title: Re: Why is enlightenment never mentioned in 4NT and 8FP?
Content:
Supramundane said:
Except nirvana is never mentioned... that's my point.

Why not just say nirvana... nirodha is similar.... i guess.... could be...

krodha wrote:
Nirvana is the “cessation of suffering” or the “end to suffering” that characterizes the third noble truth.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, September 15th, 2021 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: What are your thoughts on DMT and the entities people claim to encounter?
Content:
krodha wrote:
I interacted with a mushroom spirit a few months ago, luckily she was kind and just wanted to share information. These spirits are definitely out there.

dharmafootsteps said:
When taking mushrooms?

krodha wrote:
Yes.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, September 15th, 2021 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: What are your thoughts on DMT and the entities people claim to encounter?
Content:
krodha wrote:
I interacted with a mushroom spirit a few months ago, luckily she was kind and just wanted to share information. These spirits are definitely out there.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 9th, 2021 at 8:04 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
krodha wrote:
You have no obligation to be affiliated with the DC organization.


amanitamusc said:
No obligation but if he wants to get the material he needs to practice what he recieved from Rinpoche then that would be all the reason he needs to join DC.

krodha wrote:
Maybe. I was with ChNN since 2008 and never officially joined DC. Sort of joined in 2015 when I visited Tenerife, but then my info was lost somehow. I eventually just resorted to notifying the Shang Shung store that i had X transmission and wanted X book via message and they’d just send it.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 9th, 2021 at 7:07 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Damchö_Dorje said:
I am Norbu Rinpoche's student, through the webcast, relatively late in his life (November 2016).

I have wondered whether to be affiliated with DC, because I have come across conflicting information re: if it is required for samaya reasons. Sometimes the language has been that people in the Community have received teachings that affiliation is required.

krodha wrote:
If you received transmission you’re inextricably affiliated with the lineage, which is the only affiliation that really matters.

You have no obligation to be affiliated with the DC organization.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, September 6th, 2021 at 2:25 PM
Title: Re: translation of Dra Talgyur and its commentary by Vimalamitra
Content:
yagmort said:
i think this video is from the beginning of the project, circa 2015. Adriano is saying that Elio is only about to begin translation. one year ago covid was already at full swing, Elio passed away in November. ChNNR passed away in 2018. Adriano is talking like none of this happened.

krodha wrote:
You must be right then. I actually had not heard of Elio’s passing until now. How terrible.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, September 6th, 2021 at 11:13 AM
Title: Re: translation of Dra Talgyur and its commentary by Vimalamitra
Content:
yagmort said:
that video can not be from the last year. Adriano is sayin "shortly, Elio Guarisco will start..."

krodha wrote:
It was uploaded to the Dzogchen Community Vimeo page 1 year ago.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, September 6th, 2021 at 5:26 AM
Title: Re: translation of Dra Talgyur and its commentary by Vimalamitra
Content:
krodha wrote:
Apparently as of 2020 the Shang Shung Drataljur project still required 2 to 5 years to complete:

https://ka-ter.org/index.php/the-ka-ter-translation-project/the-dra-thalgyur-translation-project-of-the-shang-shung-institute-austria/

Adriano Clemente update from last year:


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 2nd, 2021 at 2:30 AM
Title: Re: Choiceless awareness
Content:
krodha wrote:
Michael Tweed has said that in addition to Vimalamitra’s five definitions, one could feasibly add (i) the vidyā [rig pa] of the basis, (ii) vidyā of the path, (iii) vidyā of the result, and also (iv) vidyā as a synonym for sems, but still, even despite these other possible definitions, none of them trend towards vidyā as “awareness.”


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 2nd, 2021 at 2:18 AM
Title: Re: Choiceless awareness
Content:
Matt J said:
There is more to Dzogchen than what is contained in any book, or books. Propagating such a narrow definition in the face of how many lineage teachers often use the term will only lead to confusion.

Also, not to belabor the point, but this does not say "only these definitions are acceptable, and none other."

krodha wrote:
This begs the question then, what other definition is apt?

What definition do you feel is missing from Vimalamitra’s five examples? It seems his assessment of the different contextual uses runs the gamut, but if you disagree I’m interested to hear why.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 2nd, 2021 at 1:02 AM
Title: Re: Choiceless awareness
Content:
Matt J said:
Not necessarily.

krodha wrote:
Invariably.

Vimalamitra:
Furthermore, based on the power of repelling the armies of samsara, vidyā (rig pa) is 1) the knowledge (vidyā) of names designated by words, 2) helpful, worldly knowledge such as healing, arts and crafts, and so on, 3) the five sciences (rig pa gnas lnga) of the treatises and so on, 4) knowing (vidyā) as a factor of consciousness, 5) sharp and dull worldly knowledge and so on, and 6) the knowledge of the essence (snying po) that permeates all that is free from ignorance, unobscured by the obscurations of ignorance and so on.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 2nd, 2021 at 12:34 AM
Title: Re: Choiceless awareness
Content:
Passing By said:
I don't understand why awareness is an inadequate translation for it though

krodha wrote:
Granted there are different modalities of rigpa, but in terms of why “awareness” in an inadequate gloss, squirrels have awareness, a dog has awareness, for example, but they do not have rig pa. Rig pa is “knowledge” in every use of the term, and in the definitive sense, knowledge of the snying po, or essence.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 31st, 2021 at 1:39 AM
Title: Re: Being on the high bhumis without knowing?
Content:
Lhasa said:
And what is the difference between Recognition and Realizing?  If one has Recognized, then what?

krodha wrote:
Recognition [ngo shes] is generally related to the example jñāna the guru introduces. Then realization, rtogs pa, comes later.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 12th, 2021 at 1:35 AM
Title: Re: Atheism vs Buddhism (was Non Cultural Buddhists: What Made You Stay?)
Content:
krodha wrote:
I also hold that the buddhadharma is ultimately atheist and consider myself an atheist.

These teachings are true atheism in my eyes, going far beyond the popularized scientific materialist “atheists” who essentially worship mundane direct perceptions and cling to their own beliefs... no different than the religions they reject.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, February 9th, 2021 at 12:59 PM
Title: Re: What is and isn't Yogacara?
Content:
karmanyingpo said:
Was the other stuff I said accurate?

krodha wrote:
I edited my post above and cited Mipham stating that true aspectarian also negates entities external to the mind.

As for whether everything you’ve said is accurate or not, my knowledge of the nuances of Yogācāra is somewhat superficial so I can’t be certain.

I do know that the premise of “mind only” is that phenomena or appearances are metal factors, and result from an activation of karmic traces in the ālayavijñāna.

Yogācāra also asserts a “container universe” which is a nexus of mutual influence where all sentient beings participate in manifesting what appears to be an external environment. This principle is also adopted in Vajrayāna systems.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, February 9th, 2021 at 12:30 PM
Title: Re: What is and isn't Yogacara?
Content:
karmanyingpo said:
Yogacara does not mean that there is a mind that is like some kind of creator god that "projects" reality in the sense of fabricating things out of nothing

krodha wrote:
False-aspectarian Yogācāra does indeed assert that.

Edit: it appears true aspectarian may negate “extramental” entities as well, from Mipham:

In the case of the True Aspectarians, there are three possible ways in which the mental aspects and consciousness may be said quantitatively to relate. This is similar to the situation with the Sautrantikas, except that whereas the latter affirm the existence of outer objects and say that they cast their aspects on the mind, the Chittamatrins simply consider that the object is an appearing mental aspect and deny the existence of extramental entities. This is the only point on which the Sautrantikas and Chittamatrins disagree.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, February 6th, 2021 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: Where are the "pratyekabuddha-yanist"?
Content:
krodha wrote:
In my understanding, pratyekabuddhas manifest realization based on their contact with a guru in a previous life (in some cases it has to be contact with a samyaksambuddha), and only manifest pratyekabuddhahood in a time and place when/where there is no Buddha nor extant lineage of the buddhadharma.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, January 24th, 2021 at 4:07 PM
Title: Re: r/streamentry Reddit
Content:
cjdevries said:
For anyone that hasn't seen the subreddit r/streamentry, it's full of excellent meditation guides, conversations with serious practitioners about meditation techniques and experiences, and a list of reputable teachers.  It's too good of a resource not to share with those that haven't seen it.

krodha wrote:
In my experience the stream entry subreddit is replete with people who are essentially deceiving themselves. There is no harm in exploring it, but be very careful.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 22nd, 2019 at 10:27 AM
Title: Re: Finding a qualified Teacher
Content:
passel said:
I thought Lama Lena was attached to Lama Wangdu, not Lama Wangdor?

krodha wrote:
Lama Wangdor.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 22nd, 2019 at 8:07 AM
Title: Re: Mind essence introduced in advaita and TB
Content:
Sherab said:
If not, I am left with the conclusion that you don't really understand what I wrote or you don't bother to understand what I was trying to say.

Finally, as far as I can see, the authority you cited in no way contradict my actual position and I have reasons to back that.

krodha wrote:
Your mentioning of the ideas I pointed out above, specifically the “mental representations” and breaking things down to fundamental constituents, seemed to be your position. If they aren’t then they certainly muddied the waters in terms of understanding your actual position.

At first you appeared to be taking issue with the import of Candrakīrti’s view on the two truths being species of cognition, but now you are saying you actually are in agreement with his view.

Honestly it is hard to decipher your position, but it would be nice to if you want to unpack it further.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 22nd, 2019 at 7:42 AM
Title: Re: Finding a qualified Teacher
Content:
Pero said:
Also, Kunzang Dechen Lingpa finished the four visions but his body was still here.

krodha wrote:
It appeared to be there from the standpoint of people’s karmic vision.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, January 20th, 2019 at 8:39 AM
Title: Re: Mind essence introduced in advaita and TB
Content:


Sherab said:
What is this object?

Malcolm said:
Any given object has two natures, according to Candrakīrti possesses two natures: one ultimate, one relative. If you are not happy with this, take it up with Candrakīrti.

Sherab said:
I went through the possibilities of what the objects of cognition could be for a table and an example and you clearly could not reply my question directly.  Why?

If you bother to try to answer my question directly instead of evading, you will notice that the object of cognition for a relative truth and an ultimate truth for a table can never be the same object until you drill down to the final parts that made up the object.

For the same reason, you will also notice that the object of cognition necessarily has to be a mental image rather than the object itself for a relative truth until you come to the final parts that made up the object.

krodha wrote:
This notion that (i) the object of cognition has to be a “mental image” rather than the “object itself, or (ii) the idea that you must “drill down to the final parts that made up the object” in order to have relative and ultimate truths be simultaneously applicable to a given object... are these your own ideas?

I’m not sure where you are deriving these notions from.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 16th, 2019 at 4:22 PM
Title: What is the nature of mind?
Content:
tatpurusa said:
Shunyata has nothing to do with nihilism. If you think ultimately sentient beings are nothing at all, you definitely do not understand what emptiness means.

krodha wrote:
All phenomena, including sentient beings, are ultimately unfindable, this is the actual meaning of emptiness. The ultimate invalidity if sentient beings is an integral teaching of the Mahāyāna that is found even in the prajñāpāramitā sūtras.

Regarding nihilism, because I have not negated the conventional status of sentient beings, I have not advocated for a nihilist view.

tatpurusa said:
What is awareness? What is reality and what is illusion? Are sentient beings really, absolutely deluded in your opinion? Are samsara and suffering absolute reality? What is time and what is the relationship between time and emptiness?

krodha wrote:
This is a landslide of questions

tatpurusa said:
I have not asked this "landslide of questions" in order to somehow confuse you.

krodha wrote:
I never said you intended to confuse me, but seven questions launched in consecutive sentences is a bit excessive and unnecessary. Perhaps choose one or two so the conversation is manageable.

tatpurusa said:
I have asked them because their clarification is necessary in order to understand what the difference and what the relationship is between *ordinary, conditioned, conceptual mind" and "nature of mind

krodha wrote:
The ordinary, conditioned mind is dualistic, it cognizes external entities, and mistakes itself to be an established entity, a self, that acts as an agent, engaging in activities and being subjected to positive and negative occurrences, etc.

The nature of mind is the ordinary mind’s actual nature, which is its ultimate insubstantiality.

When the nature of mind is defined as inseparable emptiness and clarity [stong gsal dbyer med], the actual meaning of this is “the emptiness of clarity,” the emptiness of the knowing or cognizant aspect of the mind, and the unreality of the self that is imputed into that knowing, cognizant quality.

To know the nature of the mind we must awaken [budh]. Buddha literally means “awakened one” because a Buddha has awakened to the nature of their mind and has eradicated all obscurations so that they rest in that nature at all times.

In brief: when the mind is ignorant of its nature then it is expressed as the ordinary dualistic mind [skt. citta, tib. sems], with all of the implications listed above. This ignorance occurs because the mind’s clarity, or its aware aspect is not recognized to be empty, and is reified as an abiding, background substratum as a result. That substrate becomes the foundation for the misconception of a self, and the misconception of external phenomena by default.

When ignorance ceases, the mind awakens to its actual nature, and the nature of phenomena in general. Meaning the self, and the substrate the self is imputed upon are realized to be false, and allegedly external entities — persons, places and things are also recognized to be false.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 16th, 2019 at 8:20 AM
Title: Re: Interesting excerpt from the (Hindu) Mahanirvana Tantra
Content:
tatpurusa said:
"Who" and "what" are these sentient beings in reality? Their ordinary, ever changing minds?

krodha wrote:
This depends on what you mean by “reality.” If by “reality” you mean their actual nature, then these sentient beings are ultimately nothing at all. That absence of identity, essence, etc., is the ultimate truth of sentient beings, and everything for that matter.

Nevertheless, we do not engage in these teachings from the standpoint of ultimate truth, and if we insist on an ultimate view from the standpoint of our relative condition then we err into nihilism.

Therefore in the context of the application of these teachings, sentient beings are beings who are deluded regarding their actual nature.

tatpurusa said:
What is awareness? What is reality and what is illusion? Are sentient beings really, absolutely deluded in your opinion? Are samsara and suffering absolute reality? What is time and what is the relationship between time and emptiness?

tp.

krodha wrote:
This is a landslide of questions, I’m not sure what your intention is in asking all of these questions.

The point we are discussing is the fact that sentient beings are precisely “sentient beings” because they are ignorant of their nature. That nature is veiled due to the presence of adventitious obscurations, and therefore is “latent,” meaning “present but obstructed by certain conditions.”


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 16th, 2019 at 5:56 AM
Title: Re: Interesting excerpt from the (Hindu) Mahanirvana Tantra
Content:
Malcolm said:
When krodha says the nature of the mind is "latent," he means it is not something which is obvious to everyone. For example, like a crocodile under the water.

tatpurusa said:
I understand what krodha means. This does not make it correct though.

krodha wrote:
If I’m incorrect, then all sentient beings are aware of the nature of their minds at all times. Is this what you are asserting?


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 16th, 2019 at 1:27 AM
Title: Re: Interesting excerpt from the (Hindu) Mahanirvana Tantra
Content:
Pero said:
Not really. We aren't all part of a tathagatagarbha.

Grigoris said:
I think your are being overly literal in the interpretation of the passage.

The Tathagatagarbha is also referred to as the Dharmadhatu in some traditions, where the Dharmadhatu is the ground/space of all existence.  If somebody views the passage allegorically instead of literally...

krodha wrote:
Dharmadhātu is the emptiness of phenomena, and moreover is not held to be something actually established or real.

Tathāgatagarbha is just a name for the latent and unrecognized nature of mind, while obscured by affliction, delusion, etc.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 15th, 2019 at 12:02 PM
Title: Re: Interesting excerpt from the (Hindu) Mahanirvana Tantra
Content:
krodha wrote:
I gave this excerpt just a brief skim and saw numerous points of departure that not even a replacement of terms would rectify.

Grigoris said:
Would you care to furnish an example?

krodha wrote:
These statements cannot be warped to fit the Buddhist view:

(i) man becomes liberated by the knowledge that he himself is Brahman (115). Final liberation is attained by the knowledge that the Atma (Soul) is the witness...

(ii) The soul which is detached from all things is ever liberated...

(iii) As the Sun (though one and the same) when reflected in different platters of water appears to be many, so by illusion the one soul appears to be many in the different bodies in which it abides (132).


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 15th, 2019 at 4:03 AM
Title: Re: Interesting excerpt from the (Hindu) Mahanirvana Tantra
Content:
Grigoris said:
If you fiddle with it just a tiny bit (replace some terms) you will find that it differs only very slightly from Buddhist Tantra.

krodha wrote:
I gave this excerpt just a brief skim and saw numerous points of departure that not even a replacement of terms would rectify.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 14th, 2019 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: Mind essence introduced in advaita and TB
Content:
krodha wrote:
You’re being a bit too liberal with your interpretation of Ramana Maharshi’s advice. He means “exclude all phenomena” in a literal sense, not simply as a temporary means to avoid distraction.

Grigoris said:
Are you sure you are not being too literal?

krodha wrote:
If only the purusa exists, then no, I’m not being too literal.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 14th, 2019 at 10:45 PM
Title: Re: Mind essence introduced in advaita and TB
Content:
fckw said:
I once read this meditation instruction for Advaita Vedanta, it was propagated by a very respectable student of Ramana Maharishi:
Direct the awareness towards the totality of itself and exclude all phenomena.
Now, if you have received Dzogchen instructions you will immediately understand that such an approach cannot be compatible with the Dzogchen view.

Grigoris said:
Observing one's mind without distraction by "external phenomena" (the senses) is a technique taught in Mahamudra.

krodha wrote:
You’re being a bit too liberal with your interpretation of Ramana Maharshi’s advice. He means “exclude all phenomena” in a literal sense, not simply as a temporary means to avoid distraction.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, January 13th, 2019 at 8:07 AM
Title: Re: Tulsi Gabbard
Content:


SonamTashi said:
It is all just opinions either way, but I think it is highly unlikely that the Democrats won't win.

ford_truckin said:
What everyone thought in 2016 and then the complete opposite happened.

krodha wrote:
The opposite didn’t happen given that Trump lost the popular vote.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, January 13th, 2019 at 8:04 AM
Title: Ways to Identify Naga Incense
Content:
krodha wrote:
Interested in tips on identifying what is and is not incense appropriate for nāgā offering.

I went to my local ling to buy some but they did not have any. Decided I would try a local Tibetan shop and they had a wide variety however even with ingredients listed the contents were still ambiguous due to the lists often ending with “etc.” or “and other fine substances.”

Any brands or types that are generally acceptable?

I am mainly using it for offering of remnants in the context of ganapuja.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 10th, 2019 at 8:18 AM
Title: Re: Does Mahayana lose its entire validity...
Content:
Thomas Amundsen said:
What about two-fold emptiness? I thought this is asserted as being absent from Hinayana and Pratyekabuddhayana.

krodha wrote:
True according to Gorampa:
In the context of the Abhisamayālaṃkāra, since the unshared path of the Mahāyāna is primarily explained, having considered that the realization of freedom from proliferation is the realization of the selflessness of phenomena, that is said not to exist for śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas.
Malcolm noted that arhats realize the emptiness of the self imputed onto the aggregates but not the emptiness of the aggregates themselves. This means the Śravākayāna only produces realization of one fold emptiness.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 10th, 2019 at 7:25 AM
Title: Re: Does Mahayana lose its entire validity...
Content:
krodha wrote:
This was discussed recently. This post and thread in general may be helpful:

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=28521&start=20#p447143


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
krodha wrote:
Most who have practiced both paths in a serious manner state that in addition to being conceptually different, they are also experientially different.

Grigoris said:
Of course they would.  They are, in both instances, judging a non-conceptual experience via their currently existing karmic view, after all.

krodha wrote:
No, I am saying that those who have practiced both paths, report that they are qualitatively different in an experiential sense. Like the taste of sugar and salt.

One would not assert that the taste of sugar and salt only differ in the aftermath of tasting them, when the non-conceptual experience of each is described differently.

They are actually different, experientially, as non-conceptual tastes. The same goes for these paths and their respective realizations, etc.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 1:28 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Vaktar said:
For a quarter-century (!) I and one other person have periodically discussed these or similar questions with one of the world's leading Vedanta scholars, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usu_cLGXLg4&t=965s. At the end of the day, I can only concur with Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche and certain other Dzogchen masters before him, that what we call "Dzogchen" is what others call "connate wisdom", "great bliss", "Buddha-nature", or "Atman", or "God" and so on.

So is there a subtle difference or not? I think there are subtle differences of understanding, according to individual karma. There are also differences in terminology used to indicate "non-duality". But no such description can ever be axiomatic, unless we are willing to accept the finger that points at the moon as the moon itself.

Grigoris said:
I also believe that all of them glimpse the same thing (on the basis of the reported accounts of their experiences), but that post-experience, when karma driven conceptualisation kicks in, it is defined according to the criteria of each believer.

krodha wrote:
Most who have practiced both paths in a serious manner state that in addition to being conceptually different, they are also experientially different.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, January 6th, 2019 at 6:49 PM
Title: Re: Essence = nature, but emptiness ≠ clarity
Content:
Viach said:
Why are the two different aspects of Basis (emptiness and clarity) called two synonyms: essence (emptiness) and nature (clarity)?

krodha wrote:
“Essence” is how the Tibetan term ngo bo is glossed. “Nature” translates rang bzhin.

The ngo bo aspect of the nature of mind is its emptiness. The rang bzhin aspect of the nature of mind is its clarity.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, January 5th, 2019 at 5:55 AM
Title: Re: Visions thread
Content:
Sherab Rigdrol said:
What happened to it? I was on page 5 and now I get this you aren’t authorized to read this forum message!! It was a great thread. WTF?!!

krodha wrote:
Yeah weird.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 16th, 2018 at 4:10 PM
Title: Re: Can we discuss Theravada teachings?
Content:


ford_truckin said:
Yes, It seems like every guru/lama has a different opinion on this or that. With theravada you can go directly to the source (pali canon) and get a definitive answer.

krodha wrote:
Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna and also have definitive and reliable texts.

ford_truckin said:
Isn't the primary focus in Vajrayana on what your gurus tells you since they are supposed to be seen as manifestations of enlightened beings?

krodha wrote:
An advantage of Vajrayāna is that a living teacher provides a living transmission. This is actually how the buddhadharma is intended to be taught, as an aural system and lineage.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 16th, 2018 at 8:11 AM
Title: Re: Can we discuss Theravada teachings?
Content:
2ndchance said:
Well I am mainly a Varjrayana practitioner with interest in Mahayana teachings as well.

Lately, I have been delving into Theravada teachings as they seem pretty straightforward compared to Vajrayana teachings.

ford_truckin said:
Yes, It seems like every guru/lama has a different opinion on this or that. With theravada you can go directly to the source (pali canon) and get a definitive answer.

krodha wrote:
Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna and also have definitive and reliable texts.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 5th, 2018 at 4:39 AM
Title: Re: New Head of Nyingma: Kathok Getse Rinpoche
Content:
Malcolm said:
It is quite clear he knew prior to his passing that he was going to pass soon.

krodha wrote:
What indication did he give?


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 2nd, 2018 at 9:34 AM
Title: Re: How do we know our practice is working?
Content:
LoveFromColorado said:
That makes sense and does not sound contraversial at all to me. I get the not improving nor corrupting the view. Thank you for clarifying.

krodha wrote:
Perhaps not controversial to you, but certainly to those involved with more common systems. Which is why it is best to avoid broadcasting openly. It can inadvertently create aversion, etc., which becoming an obstacle for someone else, in the sense of a barrier to Dzogchen, is extremely negative.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 2nd, 2018 at 7:54 AM
Title: Re: How do we know our practice is working?
Content:
LoveFromColorado said:
It feels that there is something bordering on nihilism here in this conversation that is out of balance. I get that our experience and mind are dependent arising and that rigpa is beyond both but that does not seem to address the delicate balance of interacting with our experiences. With this pretense, it would seem that even regarding someone as a guru would be false. Why do guru yoga then? Why make practices for ChNN's health if we merely stop at rigpa being beyond experience and mind? There would be no point - surely there is something deeper here?

Does that make sense, and can anyone shed any light here?

krodha wrote:
The point is that within the context of the intimate instructions, the view that is pointed out is not dependent on one’s actions. No virtuous activity will improve it and no unvirtuous activity will corrupt it.

This does not mean we should ignore our conduct, but really even if you are a horrible person, if you receive the instructions in question and apply them there will be results.

It sounds extreme but makes sense in the actual experience. This was covered first hand with Malcolm earlier this year in Santa Fe, and the teaching leaves no doubt.

That said, it is indeed controversial and not something to parade around. And while it is true, it isn’t license to be an awful person.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 25th, 2018 at 4:47 PM
Title: Re: The Mahaparinirvana Sutra
Content:
Malcolm said:
A couple of observations:

The term "true self" is nowhere used in any Indian or Tibetan Buddhist text, not even in gzhan stong texts.

Even in the Uttaratantra, where we find the Tibetan term, dam pa'i bdag in the discussion of ātmapāramitā, the Sanskrit text simply gives the term as ātma. The "dam pa" was added by Ngog Lotsawa to distinguish this "self," free from the proliferation of the self [i.e. existence] imputed by the hindus and nonself [i.e. nonexistence] imputed by śrāvakas, as a quality of the dharmakāya, — in other words, it is another way of saying the dharmakāya is free from extremes. This usage in the Uttaratantra comes from contrasting the impurity, nonidentity, suffering, and impermanence of compounded phenomena, with the purity, identity, bliss, and permanence of dharmakāya. But if someone should think this contextual usage of "self" with respect to dharmakāya means dharmakāya is an existent self, they have not understood anything of Mahāyāna at all, let alone Dzogchen, or even Buddhadharma for that matter.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 13th, 2018 at 2:03 PM
Title: Re: Non-duality in dzogchen
Content:
PSM said:
I suppose the issue I have is that there simply isn't a correct conceptual view which accurately describes the ultimate nature. It simply will not fit into a box.

Two excellent quotes from Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche:
The major mistake occurs when one intellectually conceives of what Dzogchen is and holds on to that concept tightly. So it is very important to incorporate the teachings into personal experience through the teacher's oral instructions.
When we say "Let go into nonfabrication," isn't that itself also unnatural? Isn't letting go also a fabrication? We use words because we have no other way to proceed, but saying "Let go, rest loosely!", doesn't mean that there is something that is being let go of and somebody who lets go. True letting go is without these two, beyond duality.
When you have finally attained stability in your practice, relying on such words as "Let go, rest loosely!" can be quite damaging. How can words compare to the naked, self-existing awareness itself? Words are just like rice husks.You will gradually cast words away as your view deepens, as it becomes more profound. When the view reaches fullness, you will really know how much damage words cause.The practitioner should then recognize how submerged or entangled in words he has become.

oldbob said:
All good posts (words) on a subject that defies language.

So we are reading all these precious "secret" Dzogchen books only to go beyond all words.

krodha wrote:
Ineffability is actually true wherever we look, and isn’t a principle that is exclusive to the nature of our mind. Even the tree outside is ineffable, no word actually captures the direct experience of it. That is all “ineffable” and being “beyond words” means.

The ineffability of our nature does not mean we should diminish the importance of words. When these teachers speak of our nature being “beyond words” they are only advising that we don’t conflate the words with the actual experience.

If we had never tasted sugar before but had received teachings on the taste of “sweetness,” we would not want to conflate the idea of “sweet” with the actual taste of sugar.

Nevertheless, the word “sweet” is accurate. Describing the taste of sugar as “salty,” would be inaccurate.

While the actual taste of sugar is ineffable and cannot be captured by the word “sweet” or “salty,” the conventional designation “sweet” is still correct.

Likewise with our nature, there are correct descriptions and incorrect descriptions. The adepts of the past spent a great deal of time ensuring accurate descriptions were upheld, and incorrect notions, like a oneness of the tīrthika persuasion, were rejected.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 12th, 2018 at 8:02 AM
Title: Re: Non-duality in dzogchen
Content:
climb-up said:
Thank you. Is that from one of his books?
If so, which one?

krodha wrote:
I’m not sure which text. The latter quotation is an excerpt of an explanation that is quite a bit longer.

Chögyal Namkhai Norbu shares the same sentiments:

We speak of a space, or sky. We speak of this space as present within a vase or a room, or the sky. It is the same space. This means the zhi [gzhi] or basis for everyone is the same. The difference we explain in Hinduism or in Dzogchen is the difference between individuals. Because when we say individuals, we mean that I am not you. You are not her. We are not the same. Nor does it mean that when someone is realized, everyone is unified into them and it becomes a kind of ??. That is not what is meant.

Zhi or basis is always composed of a clarity of the individual. This is what we refer to with the example of the sun. If there were ten suns in the sky, we would distinguish ten different suns, and not say that all these ten are one sun. Thus sky and sun are two different things as a way of seeing.

I think people get confused and think that Dzogchen falls short in its view because conventional distinctions are upheld in certain contexts. They really want a “non-dual” view but don’t understand the implications of the Hindu type non-duality they attempt to project onto Dzogchen.

In reality Dzogchen goes further, and refines that non-dual view more than tīrthika dharmas do. All at the same time making more sense, and avoiding the inconsistencies that sometime arise due to the substantial, transpersonal oneness type non-dual views.

Much of these objections are because people think Dzogchen does not go far enough, but it surpasses all other non-dual views.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 12th, 2018 at 7:49 AM
Title: Re: Non-duality in dzogchen
Content:
smcj said:
I think Lopön Tenzin Namdak and Kongtrul have differing opinions on this matter. That's ok as far as I'm concerned. To each his own.

Malcolm said:
They don have differing opinions actually, but in your strange misconception of the Dzogchen, you imagine they do.

smcj said:
There’s more than one way to skin a cat.

krodha wrote:
(a) that’s gross, (b) it’s not accurate given that Köngtrul was providing a standard description of the basis in general terms and said nothing that contradicts Lopön Rinpoche.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 11th, 2018 at 10:32 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Lukeinaz said:
in the great book "The Mirror", it is said:

"it is this decisive knowing, this pure presence of the true original condition, that is called nirvana."

so i thought the primordial state is beyond both samsara and nirvana.  here it sounds otherwise.  thoughts?

krodha wrote:
In a sense, samsara and nirvāna both appear for the practitioner, but not for the primordial state.

There is no delusion in your nature, delusion and the exhaustion of delusion both occur secondarily, “on top” of the nature, as Malcolm once shared Khenpo Ngachung saying.

In Dzogchen we aren’t refining our nature, the primordial state, which is already always originally pure and naturally perfected. Instead we are refining and working with our knowledge [rig pa] of our nature. Samsara and nirvāna both occur within this scope of refining our rig pa, purifying obscurations, etc.

Lukeinaz said:
so the decisive knowing and the primordial state are distinct.

krodha wrote:
Yes, in a sense they are distinct, because if your rigpa and your nature were identical, then your rigpa would never become marigpa.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 11th, 2018 at 9:45 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Lukeinaz said:
in the great book "The Mirror", it is said:

"it is this decisive knowing, this pure presence of the true original condition, that is called nirvana."

so i thought the primordial state is beyond both samsara and nirvana.  here it sounds otherwise.  thoughts?

krodha wrote:
In a sense, samsara and nirvāna both appear for the practitioner, but not for the primordial state.

There is no delusion in your nature, delusion and the exhaustion of delusion both occur secondarily, “on top” of the nature, as Malcolm once shared Khenpo Ngachung saying.

In Dzogchen we aren’t refining our nature, the primordial state, which is already always originally pure and naturally perfected. Instead we are refining and working with our knowledge [rig pa] of our nature. Samsara and nirvāna both occur within this scope of refining our rig pa, purifying obscurations, etc.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 11th, 2018 at 9:26 AM
Title: Re: Non-duality in dzogchen
Content:
krodha wrote:
Here is Lopön Tenzin Namdak elaborating on the thig le nyag gcig, what “single” or “one” means in the context of Dzogchen:

That is Chigpu - without any partition. It means that each individual being has mind and the Nature is of a very similar quality.  

Don't think that there is just one Nature (for everyone). Don't think it is like the sun, that there is just one sun but its rays cover everywhere. Each being has mind and wherever there is mind, there is Nature- it is not separate from mind but Nature is not just the same (one). Each individual being has Nature and this Nature is practiced and realized by the individual; it is the individual who takes the Result.  

When the text says Thigle Nyagchig, it means similar quality; Emptiness, Clarity and Unification are the same everywhere.  

For example, if you cut down one stick of bamboo you can see it is hollow and so you don't need to cut down all the bamboo. In a similar way, if you realize (the Nature of your Mind) it is your mind which liberates into Nature. All sentient beings who have mind are integrated with Nature. That is Thigle Nyagchig. That is what single means.

He then warns:

If you don't understand this clearly but think that one mind pervades everything, then that is what is kept and learnt in Vedanta; that is their very strong view. If you believe this then your Damtsig is broken and you go against the meaning of Dzogchen. 

Is that clear? You must make sure (of this point). If you think that (Nature) is one without individual partitions, that this 'one' pervades everything, then that is breaking your Dzogchen Damtsig and goes against the Dzogchen View. Hopefully you have understood clearly.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 11th, 2018 at 7:21 AM
Title: Re: Non-duality in dzogchen
Content:
krodha wrote:
One’s nature is individual in a conventional sense, because the individual is likewise conventional.

In the actuality of the way things really are there is not any individuality, because entities cannot be established, but this does not mean there is some other ultimate substance that everything is reduced to, or subsumed into.

The ultimate nature of Dzogchen is non-reductive, because it is the unreality of the entities suggested by our ignorance, i.e., the insubstantiality of mind, and the insubstantiality of phenomena.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 11th, 2018 at 7:15 AM
Title: Re: Non-duality in dzogchen
Content:
krodha wrote:
Diversity and individuality are permitted conventionally in Dzogchen, but not ultimately. Singularity is not held to be tenable conventionally or ultimately.

By “conventionally” I mean in the sense of how things appear [snang lugs], and by “ultimately” I mean how things really are [gnas lugs].

In any case a singular oneness is not found in these teachings either conventionally or in an ultimate sense. Holding to an idea of a singular, ultimate nature that is shared or transpersonal actually breaks the samaya of gcig pu.

Lopön Tenzin Namdak has been very vocal on this matter. Norbu Rinpoche has also clarified that plurality is acceptable but not a shared singularity. Ju Mipham speaks out against a singular ultimate nature. And the Rig pa rang shar also negates tirthika oneness and rejects tirthika systems which promote such a view.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 11th, 2018 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: Non-duality in dzogchen
Content:
PSM said:
the dharmakaya of all buddhas is one, but mindstreams of sentient beings are separate. Seems there is a fine line to walk between dualism and monism.

krodha wrote:
Not “one” in a monistic sense, but rather “one” in the sense of an identical generic characteristic. Like the heat of all fires is one and the same as a generic characteristic that all fires have in common, or the wetness of water. Wherever you go, that quality of wetness is uniform and the same, no matter where you encounter water.

The nature of mind of each sentient being is qualitatively identical in that they’re all inseparable clarity and emptiness.

This avoids a transpersonal oneness like tirthika dharmas promote.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 9th, 2018 at 2:12 PM
Title: Re: The Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra and The Self-Liberated Vidya Tantra A Translation of the Rigpa Rang Shar and Rigpa Rang
Content:
jnanasutra said:
If Gzhon nu Dpa’ bo stobs ldan is teaching a retinue (which includes Vajrapani) that is merely an emanation of his own pristine consciousness, then when this buddha sees the appearances of six realms of samsara it must be the case that the beings in each realm must also be emanations of his pristine consciousness. I understand the idea of the Yogācāra container universe model, however, this model works from the perspective of a deluded mind. So how does this buddha view sentient beings? Are sentient beings similar to the retinue in that they are his own emanations? I know the general phrases, “buddhas don’t see sentient beings” and “sentient beings do not exist.” That is not what I am getting at. I am trying to understand this from a Man ngag sde perspective. Any thoughts? Thanks.

krodha wrote:
Malcolm wrote last year:

Malcolm said:
Buddhas know what sentient beings perceive, they just don't perceive it themselves. For example, buddhas only perceive sentient beings as other buddhas, they do not perceive them as sentient beings. But they know that sentient beings suffer from delusion.

krodha wrote:
As for the appearance of these sentient beings being their (buddha’s) own emanation, that all gets a bit abstract. I won’t pretend to know the official men ngag sde position on the matter. However the mind of a Buddha is dharmakāya, which emanates the form kāyas. Buddhas do not mistake their rtsal to be external entities (Longchenpa states rtsal is relative and not ultimately  established anyway), nevertheless through compassion appearances manifest and buddhas acknowledge that sentient beings appear and are seemingly deluded.

How this potentially relates to the aspect of the collective projection of the container universe is interesting. Malcolm has said that despite the fact that it seems contradictory, Buddhas still have aggregates, which means they must still relate to the container universe in some respect even though they know it is unreal, e.g., magicians who know their illusion to be unreal even if others perceive it to be otherwise.

That said I get that you are asking how the collective projection of a container universe by numerous sentient beings on the relative level with the catalyst of delusion is related to how a buddha perceives the appearances that are the basis of designation for the purported, aforementioned, relative phenomena in question (sentient beings, container universe etc.).

Thought provoking questions. I don’t have the answer, but appreciate that you’re asking questions of this nature.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 4th, 2018 at 5:48 PM
Title: Re: Merging With The True Self While Dying by Elio Guarisco: Why?
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
They manage, however, to cast doubt on people who are likely to play a major role in the future of the DC.

krodha wrote:
The intention isn’t to cast doubt. But that said they do have some big shoes to fill. I hope they remain mindful of that and walk the line.

I’m all for individual expression, but not at the expense of the integrity of Rinpoche’s legacy and the foundation he already laid via example.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 4th, 2018 at 5:37 PM
Title: Re: Merging With The True Self While Dying by Elio Guarisco: Why?
Content:
Miroku said:
Understandable. However, for a year we are supposed to observe a mourning aperiod as requested by the family. And although your concern is for sure based on a good intention now it is not the time to share it. Lets just mindfully chill and do guruyoga.

krodha wrote:
That is all well and good. I’m just responding to the article the Melong republished yesterday.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 4th, 2018 at 5:23 PM
Title: Re: Merging With The True Self While Dying by Elio Guarisco: Why?
Content:


Miroku said:
Elio has said he would do it differently so probably no need to worry about him becoming an advaitin.

Grigoris is right, this is better to take to the man himself.

krodha wrote:
Trust me no one is worried about Elio becoming an Advaitin, certainly not I. He only reconsidered controversial epigraph after the Vajracakra discussion was brought to his attention.

Really this isn’t about Elio specifically, but about the integrity of ChNN’s teaching being maintained by those who now carry the torch. That is the import of my gripe.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 4th, 2018 at 5:12 PM
Title: Re: Merging With The True Self While Dying by Elio Guarisco: Why?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Gzhan stong rhetoric has nothing to do with Dzogchen.

Grigoris said:
Well, it seems that for some it does.

krodha wrote:
Gzhan stong is a sūtrayāna system, their principles are no more applicable to Dzogchen than any other sūtra system, arguably less so given that their tenets are in direct conflict with the view of Dzogchen in various ways.

Grigoris said:
And no Indian tathāgatagarbha literature ever used the term “true self” [satyātman].
You have read all the Indian tahagatagarbha literature in Sanskrit?

krodha wrote:
This has been discussed on here before, “true self” only appears in English translations of tathāgatagarbha sūtras and is a reflection of the translator’s interests rather than anything accurate to the source material.

Grigoris said:
And maybe the Indian literature doesn't, but the Tibetan literature uses the term.

krodha wrote:
Rarely. Even then, figures like Dolbupa were certain to ensure such verbiage was understood to be a rhetorical device and not a reference to anything literal.

Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with Dzogchen.

Grigoris said:
I appreciate Elio’s contributions in terms of translations etc., but I’m not at all interested in why he harbors an affinity for tirthika type verbiage and ideas in general.
So you are not actually interested in receiving an answer for question, you are just here to bitch about Elio?

krodha wrote:
Im here to bitch and engage in constructive discussion.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 4th, 2018 at 4:57 PM
Title: Re: Merging With The True Self While Dying by Elio Guarisco: Why?
Content:
krodha wrote:
If it exists, it is exceptionally rare.

Grigoris said:
Not in Shengtong literature it isn't.  There it is basically an epithet for Buddha Nature / Tathagatagarbha.

krodha wrote:
Gzhan stong rhetoric has nothing to do with Dzogchen. And no Indian tathāgatagarbha literature ever used the term “true self” [satyātman].

Grigoris said:
Why don't you contact Elio and ask him about his use of the term?

krodha wrote:
I appreciate Elio’s contributions in terms of translations etc., but I’m not at all interested in why he harbors an affinity for tirthika type verbiage and ideas in general.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 4th, 2018 at 4:52 PM
Title: Re: Merging With The True Self While Dying by Elio Guarisco: Why?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
While I think this is absolutely silly, i'll let the thread continue if it generates something productive, but IMO given the recent requests regarding behavior, it's pretty borderline.

treehuggingoctopus said:
The thread is absolutely silly, and the timing is very bad.

krodha wrote:
“Silly” is not a valid assessment or critique. If you have an issue with the subject matter then at least attempt to use your words an explain your opinion like our friend Johnny did.

As for the timing, that is what prompted concern in the first place.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 4th, 2018 at 1:57 PM
Title: Re: Merging With The True Self While Dying by Elio Guarisco: Why?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Again, there are other Dzogchen teachers who have used the term,

krodha wrote:
My teacher did not. None of my teachers have. I’ve really never encountered any Dzogchen teachers who use the term, and I’ve been interacting with individuals who would love fodder of that nature to substantiate their colorful predilections for nearly a decade.

If it exists, it is exceptionally rare.

Johnny Dangerous said:
say nothing of Tibetan teachers generally, context is everything, asnd using the term doesn't suddenly make someone an Advaitin.

krodha wrote:
At no point in this discussion did I assert it makes someone an “Advaitin,” I simply said it is potentially misleading, and misrepresentative of the teacher and legacy said author is writing on behalf of.

As for the rest of what you said, very well.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 4th, 2018 at 1:40 PM
Title: Re: Merging With The True Self While Dying by Elio Guarisco: Why?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
IDK, I think it's kind of funny that so shortly after Rinpoches death you are publicly appointing yourself as a guardian of what he would or would not support,

krodha wrote:
I’m writing in a public Buddhist discussion forum, in the Dzogchen section. That is hardly “publicly appointing” myself. Don’t be rude.

Norbu Rinpoche had many opportunities to translate numerous terms as “true self” and never did.

Johnny Dangerous said:
Beyond that, what "notions" do you see in the article, other than your objection to a specific term?

krodha wrote:
The article is generally just fine, as I’ve stated.

Johnny Dangerous said:
The point stands, saying that anything here is fundamentally "non-Buddhist" is your biases and experiences, not a reflection of the situation.

krodha wrote:
A “true self” is not a concept used in Dzogchen.

Johnny Dangerous said:
Someone simply using the term "true self" is not the same as teaching of Buddha nature as a fundamental substance or something, there's a distinction.

krodha wrote:
I would disagree but to each their own.

Johnny Dangerous said:
According to your understanding of Dzogchen

krodha wrote:
Not my own understanding, according to the teaching itself, which adamantly rejects all notions of a self.

Johnny Dangerous said:
I can think of Dzogchen teacher off the top of my head who uses the term occasionally, and again, using a term once or twice is not the same as elucidating a concept, and so far you haven't demonstrated that the latter is going on here.

krodha wrote:
Again I disagree with the use of the term, and the author in question is a bit of a repeat offender.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 4th, 2018 at 1:21 PM
Title: Re: Merging With The True Self While Dying by Elio Guarisco: Why?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
I'm really failing to see how he is "introducing non-Buddhist concepts" into anything, he's used a contentious term - and sure, we can debate the merit of that term for sure, but then the other thing you are complaining about, apparently he already walked back. You had no issue with the rest of the article, So really, what is the problem?

krodha wrote:
Again, the issue is that Elio, amongst other individuals are now the spokespeople for my teacher’s organization and are representing his legacy in the sense that they comprehend the subject matter and can effectively communicate Norbu Rinpoche’s view.

Notions of a “true self” completely deviate from ChNN’s teaching.

Johnny Dangerous said:
Additionally, while I think the "true self" thing can be loaded in some instances, Zen teachers have been talking in a similar manner for years, so while it might trigger the sirens of Vajrayana/Dzogchen-oriented practitioners, saying it is "non Buddhist" is debatable, not wrong, just debatable.

krodha wrote:
Well it does indeed go against the grain in a Dzogchen context.

East Asian traditions were in further proximity from the climate of polemics that the Indians and Tibetans regularly encountered, and thus yes, are at times a bit more loose with their terminology and ideas.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 4th, 2018 at 1:04 PM
Title: Re: Merging With The True Self While Dying by Elio Guarisco: Why?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
It seems more like some Buddhists have an unnecessarily reactive relationship with some English words, even when contextually they seem fine.

krodha wrote:
Possibly. However at the same time these principles are quite foreign, despite your insistence that they are mere synonyms for more common tenets.

Johnny Dangerous said:
Beyond that, honestly, don't you think Rinpoche would have had something to say if he'd had this concern? Trying really hard to take this seriously, but having a hard time.

krodha wrote:
Elio clarified that he did not get permission from Rinpoche to use the Ramana Maharshi quote, and that if he had the opportunity to go back in time and leave the quotation out, he would.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 4th, 2018 at 12:58 PM
Title: Re: Merging With The True Self While Dying by Elio Guarisco: Why?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Him using the term "self", and quoting Maharishi Ramana once is "introducing non-Buddhist themes"? Can you unpack that please?

krodha wrote:
“True self” is the term used, which is predominantly non-Buddhist.

Ramana Maharshi is a teacher of Advaita Vedanta.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 4th, 2018 at 12:35 PM
Title: Re: Merging With The True Self While Dying by Elio Guarisco: Why?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
I don't understand your issues with the article.

krodha wrote:
I was clear from the beginning that I have no issue with the article itself.

I’m simply questioning Elio’s reoccurring habit of introducing non-Buddhist themes into his writings on Dzogchen. While at the same time questioning whether this activity accurately represents the intention of our late master.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 4th, 2018 at 10:09 AM
Title: Re: Merging With The True Self While Dying by Elio Guarisco: Why?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
It really seems like much ado about nothing, how different is it to use "True Self" vs. "True Nature"? I'm almost positive I've seen "True Nature" used in things in a similar or identical manner that you've never complained about, but I could be wrong. Seems perhaps you're finding an Advaitic conspiracy where none exists.

krodha wrote:
It’s no doubt much ado about nothing, but so be it. Stating that “true self” and “true nature” are synonymous or carry the same connotation is a far stretch.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 4th, 2018 at 7:09 AM
Title: Merging With The True Self While Dying by Elio Guarisco: Why?
Content:
krodha wrote:
http://melong.com/merging-true-self-dying/

The Melong resurrected this talk given by Elio in 2011, revised now in 2018 and republished.

A nice article in itself, but why Elio insists on the tirthika overtones, such as needlessly including “true self” in the title of this article which otherwise does not mention anything of that sort, is something I don’t get. Seems to be a continual theme in his contributions, which are otherwise quite nice.

This article was originally published 2 years prior to Elio’s Marvelous Primordial State which featured the controversial addition of a Ramana Maharshi quote as the epigraph. Elio later stated that this was perhaps a mistake, or at the very least something he should have reconsidered.

Why do I care? Because with Rinpoche passing, individuals like Elio are going to end up being spokespeople for Norbu Rinpoche’s organization and legacy.

ChNN was always very careful with his translation choices and what he decided to publish in written form. There was a clear and thorough attention to detail on his part.

Despite arguments that could be made in relation to the principle of bdag nyid chen po, the implementation of “true self” in such a cavalier manner — in the title of an article where it isn’t even necessary no less — is a bit reckless in my opinion.

While I should take Elio’s advice from this article, that ”...most of the time the opinions we hold on to with great attachment are useless.” I’m still marginally concerned and am airing my grievances.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 28th, 2018 at 11:45 AM
Title: Re: Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Update
Content:
krodha wrote:
The title of this thread is somewhat vague. This really isn’t any old “update,” not that the title needs to state anything explicitly, but it falls short of capturing the importance of this, and could be easily overlooked.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 28th, 2018 at 8:34 AM
Title: Re: Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Update
Content:
javier.espinoza.t said:
please mods, delete this thread. let's keep this quiet as is supposed.

krodha wrote:
The Namkhai Family has announced it and therefore wish it to be known. No need to keep it quiet.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 28th, 2018 at 8:27 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
krodha wrote:
FROM MERIGAR ITALY:

Dear friends,

Tonight, Thursday 27 September, at 9 pm our beloved Master left this earthly existence in a serene and peaceful way, at his residence, Gadeling, Merigar.
The Namkhai Family

We ask everyone to respect the privacy of the Family and the request for silence and reflection.

Students from all over the world are coming to Merigar to be together and practice. The daily collective practices are continuing and as soon as we receive directions from the Namkhai Family we will let you know how you can pay your respects and honor our beloved and precious Master.

Please remember that at the moment the Master is in Thugdam (Samadhi), a phase that lasts from 3 to 7 days that should not be disturbed.

Merigar Gakyil


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, September 26th, 2018 at 2:55 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Pema Yolo said:
Maybe this is a stupid question, but if one has the freedom and means to travel to Merigar (not to say that it would be easy, far from it) and is a student of ChNN, should it be endeavored at this time or is it better to practice at home? It's hard to know what to do in this situation.

krodha wrote:
Now is the time to go.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, September 17th, 2018 at 11:58 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
krodha wrote:
Nice turnout in Berkeley tonight. Our sangha is fairly small so glad to see numbers like this. Hopefully everywhere else is experiencing the same during this important time.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, September 17th, 2018 at 8:38 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:



Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 27th, 2018 at 12:09 PM
Title: Re: What Shamatha tradition best prepares one for Dzogchen?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Also per Malcolm, from the sgra thal ‘gyur tantra:
The faults of not meditating are:
the characteristics of samsara appear to one, 
there is self and other, object and consciousness, 
the view is verbal, 
the field is perceptual, 
one is bound by afflictions,
also one throws away the path of the buddhahood, 
one does not understand the nature of the result, 
a basis for the sameness of all phenomena does not exist,
one's vidyā is bound by the three realms, 
and one will fall into conceptuality.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 27th, 2018 at 11:11 AM
Title: Re: What Shamatha tradition best prepares one for Dzogchen?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Noteworthy prior examples of what Malcolm has written on this subject:
Samadhi/dhyāna is a natural mental factor, we all have it. The problem is that we naturally allow this mental factor to rest on afflictive objects such as HBO, books, video games, etc. 

Śamatha practice is the discipline of harnessing our natural predisposition for concentration, and shifting it from afflictive conditioned phenomena to nonafflictive conditioned phenomena, i.e., the phenomena of the path. We do this in order to create a well tilled field for the growth of vipaśyāna. Śamatha ultimately allows us to have mental stability and suppresses afflictive mental factors so that we may eventually give rise to authentic insight into the nature of reality. While it is possible to have vipaśyāna without cultivating śamatha, it is typically quite unstable and lacks the power to effectively eradicate afflictive patterning from our minds. Therefore, the basis of all practice in Buddhadharma, from Abhidharma to the Great Perfection, is the cultivation of śamatha as a preliminary practice for germination of vipaśyāna.
And,
Rongzom makes the point very clearly that Dzogchen practitioners must develop the mental factors that characterize the first dhyana, vitarka, vicara, pritvi, sukha and ekagraha, i.e. applied attention, sustained attention, physical ease, mental ease and one-pointedness. If you do not have a stable śamatha practice, you can't really call yourself a Dzogchen practitioner at all. At best, you can call yourself someone who would like to be a Dzogchen practitioner a ma rdzogs chen pa. People who think that Dzogchen frees one from the need to meditate seriously are seriously deluded.
And,
Whether you are following Dzogchen or Mahamudra, and regardless of your intellectual understanding, your meditation should have, at base, the following characteristics:

Prthvi -- physical ease
Sukha -- mental joy
Ekagraha -- one-pointedness
Vitarka -- initial engagement
Vicara -- sustained engagement 

If any of these is missing, you have not even achieved perfect śamatha regardless of whether or not you are using an external object, the breath or even the nature of the mind... Even in Dzogchen, the five mental factors I mentioned are key without which you are really not going to make any progress.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 27th, 2018 at 11:05 AM
Title: Re: What Shamatha tradition best prepares one for Dzogchen?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Śamatha needn’t be Dzogchen specific.

As mentioned above the mental factors that accompany the first dhyāna are an ideal foundation for Dzogchen practice. The “first dhyāna” means the initial dhyāna in the very same dhyānic strata cultivated in sūtrayāna.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 21st, 2018 at 9:06 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Zen on enlightenment and post-enlightenment
Content:
krodha wrote:
Florin,

I respected your wishes regarding not sharing restricted quotes in the public forum but there’s no way I’m continuing this discussion in the private messages. The prospect of a long drawn out discussion on pm is daunting.

I always view these interactions as collective ventures in a way, in that they engender constructive inquiry for everyone. I’d rather the forum as a whole have accesss to discussion.

In any case, I removed the quotes, and will refer to them in response but won’t post them. By the way, many, or most of the quotes lack citations indicating where they originate from.

Maybe going forward we can simply say “X” tantra communicates such-and-such and share the message of the text in question via summary without having to worry about quoting restricted material verbatim.

Unfortunately much is left to be desired in your response sans all the quotations. Your arguments are deprived of reference, but your comments capture enough of your retort to reveal some semblance of the import the quotes are intended to substantiate.

In any case I didn’t run this past you but your writing is straight forward and I removed the quotes so I don’t anticipate you taking issue with bringing the interaction back to the main forum.

I will respond later this evening when I get a chance.

- Kyle
florin said:
Hi Kyle,

I thought long and hard about posting this in public.

Since most of the quoted material is restricted i decided to be respectful
Here is my answer.

First of all these are very complicated topics and some of the points reflected  in these quotations are controversial and not easily understood.

My passion for dzogchen does not give me any license to uphold the correctness of my interventions around some of the quotes provided. So in other words passion does not equal correctness. Like many i struggle with these issues but i am trying my best to be respectful and understand these things correctly and in their proper context.

krodha wrote:
This does not mean samsara is pure

florin said:
There are many instances in dzoghcen tantras where both productions of samsara and nirvana are said to be understood as pure from the very beginning .
nor does it mean delusion regarding mind and appearance does not lead to suffering
.

My understanding is that if we do not valorize suffering through the view of dzogchen it remains an understanding that is of the lower yanas,  where we have processes based on the subject object split and  where causes and conditions play an important role in generating, across a temporal line, the result of suffering.
Nevertheless, sentient beings do not accurately apprehend these appearances.
In Dzogchen affliction is not found in appearances, it is found in the mind.
The fact that we use expressions like  “deluded appearances “ does not mean that we are thinking somehow that appearances  are themselves deluded in isolation from the influence of  misapprehension.  In the context of  the dzogchen  view if you posit a mind like you seem to do you fall in the view of the two truths.
You are not differentiating between (i) mind, (ii) pristine consciousness [jñāna], and (iii) appearances.
Well, prior to knowing the state of dzogchen we can make as many differentiations as we like.
Why would we need to differentiate anything while in the state of dozgchen ? When the view is transmitted there is only one truth that we need to know.
But if we don't have the capacity to know that truth at that time we are not yet at the level of dzogchen.
We find a similar explanation from Rongdzompa:

khroda said:
Again, this is merely clarifying that appearance is the rtsal of vidyā, and is unafflicted.

florin said:
TNR made  this statement to oppose the view that maintains enlightenment is ONLY when the mind is un-deluded. Since mind is seen as the energetical manifestation of our state it is not the case that the mind itself can get un-deluded ONLY, in isolation of the basis where arises from.
Your vidyā must be purified of mind
Since one rests in the knowledge of one's state what mind is there to purify ? One has already arrived at the supreme goal. At the time of knowledge mind has been completely conquered and diversity is understood as the empty clear light wisdom of our already enlightened state.In lower yanas the abyss of no-knowledge and knowledge is crossed in eons or lifetimes but here through the empowering energy of our masters transmission  the abyss is crossed in no time.
it is not the case that your vidyā is free from association with affliction at this time. This purification is accomplished at the time of the result, and not before then.
At any moment one can connect with the transmission of knowledge at that instant one is a Buddha.

But mostly we are Buddhas for a second or two.
That said, we are in agreement regarding appearances. Although it is worth noting that Dzogchen still differentiates between karmic appearances and the appearance of dharmatā, the latter is primarily used for support on the path, and the former is then at a later time, correctly apprehend as a result.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 20th, 2018 at 2:41 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Zen on enlightenment and post-enlightenment
Content:
florin said:
Here we are talking about essential views of yanas and not about explanations of inner workings or processes.

krodha wrote:
This is not entirely true.

florin said:
It is very useful if we can make a distinction between view that represents the essence of a given teaching and classifications, categorizations and explanations of inner processes.

Indeed dzogchen talks about how delusion arises but as per the unique view of dzogchen that is nothing other than the empty energetical manifestation of our own state.

krodha wrote:
Sure, however the point still stands that sentient beings do not properly apprehend  the appearance of “their own state.”

florin said:
Through introduction this empty ever-changing but solidified light of our experience is turned upside down. At the time of introduction this view clearly explains that the entire diversity of samsaric and nirvanic activity is a manifestation of our own state.

krodha wrote:
This does not mean samsara is pure, nor does it mean delusion regarding mind and appearance does not lead to suffering.

florin said:
Again this quote is completely acceptable as the view of other yanas but is not something that is equivalent with dzogchen teachings.

"When the mind is deluded, that is cyclic existence.
If the mind is undeluded, that is called enlightenment."

krodha wrote:
Again the context is lost.

florin said:
The fact that appearances themselves are the nature of enlightenment whether they are deluded appearances or enlightened appearances.

krodha wrote:
This is a special tenet of Dzogchen. Unlike other systems which consider appearances to be the afflicted expression of mind, in Dzogchen appearances are considered to be the pure display of vidyā.

Nevertheless, sentient beings do not accurately apprehend these appearances.

In Dzogchen affliction is not found in appearances, it is found in the mind.

florin said:
Whereas the quote seems to ONLY recognise the un-deluded mind as enlightenment. Which is to say enlightenment is "this" but is not "that".

krodha wrote:
Enlightenment or awakening [bodhi] is indeed something specific.

You are not differentiating between (i) mind, (ii) pristine consciousness [jñāna], and (iii) appearances.

florin said:
This is a partial view and it is the rejection of oral transmission.

This partial view as Thinley Norbu explains is not the teaching of dzogchen:

Also, it is said:
When the mind is deluded, that is cyclic existence. If the mind is undeluded, that is called enlightenment.

This explanation is not the teachings of Dzogpa Chenpo or Mahasandhi, because it is the belief of all the lower vehicles. So therefore, here, according to the view of Dzogpa Chenpo, even though all phenomena are appearing in the mind, it must be decided that appearance itself is naturally enlightened Buddha.

krodha wrote:
Right, appearance is the rtsal of vidyā. That is the only point being made.

florin said:
Here below we find what is actually introduced at the time of introduction. I think it is important to understand this idea and not replace it with a view from other yanas.

In one body and in a single lifetime, without hardships, there can be the great ascendancy over the domain of the Original Protector. This is so because of the greatness of obviously apparent fully
enlightened Buddhahood. In the causal vehicle, effort is made to purify obscurations and accumulate merit over a period of many eons, and after
an extended period of time, the state of the result of Buddhahood is still
not apparent. This is not like that. This is directly being introduced to self awareness as the nature of the Three Kayas. Then, by staying in that state,
Buddha is just now. This is called the greatness of obviously apparent fully
enlightened Buddhahood. From this, the lower views are conquered with
splendor.

krodha wrote:
This is simply communicating that the path of Dzogchen is resting in the view of dharmatā from the very beginning. Even so, in Dzogchen obscurations and affliction is also exhausted and purified, just differently.

florin said:
From The Tantra of Victorious Wisdom of the Three Realms: Realizing the discerning nature of one's own mind Is fully enlightened Buddhahood. This is also the three realms of existence. This is also all the great elements. "The three realms" means all sentient beings of the three realms of existence. "The great elements" are the immeasurable elements of the three realms of existence. Thus, as said, that which is called the discerning wisdom of one's mind is unmistakably knowing the nature of mind.

krodha wrote:
This is also non-controversial.

florin said:
We find a similar explanation from Rongdzompa:
Clear understanding of one's mind means understanding perfectly the nature of one's mind. In this regard the (customary) explanation is that when the mind is deluded this is samsara while
when it has understanding and is no longer deluded this is enlightenment
(bodhi), but this does not correspond to the Dzogchen tradition as it is also confirmed by the lesser vehicles. So
here [where the true Dzogchen tradition is explained] one must understand that, even though all phenomena appear as mind, appearance itself is the nature of enlightenment of the Buddhas.

krodha wrote:
Again, this is merely clarifying that appearance is the rtsal of vidyā, and is unafflicted.

florin said:
This is very clear. There is nowhere that says that because phenomena appear as mind we must consider that as samsara. When we  are actually not recognising the fact that these bad experiences we have are the clear light energetical manifestations of our state

krodha wrote:
Fundamentally this is the case, but that is just an idea until you recognize it.

florin said:
we believe that we need somehow to get involved with various purificatory rites to accumulate merit and wisdom so we can turn our state into an enlightened state at a later date

krodha wrote:
Your vidyā must be purified of mind, it is not the case that your vidyā is free from association with affliction at this time. This purification is accomplished at the time of the result, and not before then.

florin said:
sometime in the future.This way of thinking becomes the perfect reflection of:

When the mind is deluded, that is cyclic existence. If the mind is un-deluded, that is called enlightenment.

krodha wrote:
If you believe your experience is free from affliction and your mind pure at this time, then alright, that is a belief you are welcome to uphold. I do not share this opinion.

florin said:
And for the record i am not one of those that advocates that this fact of innate liberation is constantly and at all times known by us and as a consequence there is nothing to do. No.The question of capacity to recognise this fact applies. But we should be aware of something very simple.The fact that we are not in this knowledge does no make it necessary to deviate via the lower vehicles and adopt their views.

krodha wrote:
The only “lower yāna” view being repudiated by the quotations you have cited is the view that appearances are the afflicted display of mind.

florin said:
It is not necessary to deviate.The capacity to recognise, stay and live in this knowledge gets developed exactly through the application of oral, symbolic and direct transmission principles of dzoghcen. And here we find many methods.

krodha wrote:
No one is suggesting that you deviate, but if you do not think you are experiencing samsara at this time, or that your mind is not deluded, then you are confused.

That said, we are in agreement regarding appearances. Although it is worth noting that Dzogchen still differentiates between karmic appearances and the appearance of dharmatā, the latter is primarily used for support on the path, and the former is then at a later time, correctly apprehend as a result.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, August 19th, 2018 at 5:13 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Zen on enlightenment and post-enlightenment
Content:
florin said:
There are lots of dzogchenpa's that hold the following view:
When the mind is deluded, that is cyclic existence.
If the mind is undeluded, that is called enlightenment.

Unfortunately this is completely incorrect .

krodha wrote:
Such a view is not incorrect. The fact that phenomena are already liberated does not mean you possess a working knowledge of this.

Vairocana:

At the time of vidyā, wisdom arises as the dhātu; at the time of avidyā, wisdom appears as samsara.

florin said:
The idea was that the view from that passage does not represent the teaching of dzogchen.

krodha wrote:
Why not? Dzogchen as a teaching contains much nuance and context. It isn’t so cut any dry.

florin said:
You cannot hold that view and yet consider yourself a dzogchenpa .

krodha wrote:
Which view? That the deluded mind results in samsara?

The system of Dzogchen spends a great deal of time explaining how delusion occurs and the mind becomes entrenched in suffering.

Many Dzogchenpas nowadays have trouble accounting for context. They will either (i) read an exposition given by an adept explaining the view of equipoise and/or non-regressive wisdom, or (ii) details explaining the actuality of one’s nature as uncorrupted, etc.

They will then think either (i) or (ii) or both, apply to their current situation.

The latter, part (ii) is indeed applicable to our current situation but as a latent truth which must be recognized. Until such recognition occurs, delusion is present in the mind and samsara is in tact.

There is no samsara or nirvana for one’s nature, but there is for you, the practitioner.

Inversely, part (i) is really only applicable to seasoned adepts.

It is imperative that we remain mindful of context and nuance in Dzogchen, otherwise we run the risk of deceiving ourselves.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, August 19th, 2018 at 2:00 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Zen on enlightenment and post-enlightenment
Content:
florin said:
There are lots of dzogchenpa's that hold the following view:
When the mind is deluded, that is cyclic existence.
If the mind is undeluded, that is called enlightenment.

Unfortunately this is completely incorrect .

krodha wrote:
Such a view is not incorrect. The fact that phenomena are already liberated does not mean you possess a working knowledge of this.

Vairocana:

At the time of vidyā, wisdom arises as the dhātu; at the time of avidyā, wisdom appears as samsara.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 17th, 2018 at 5:14 AM
Title: Re: Kenshō the first Bhumi?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Thanks for your insight Meido. You and I are saying the same thing, just coming from two different traditions.

When I say “equipoise” [tib. mnyam bzhag] I mean samadhi infused with prajñā just as you describe. In the system I practice, Dzogchen, the path is likewise considered incomplete until equipoise and post-equipoise, i.e., periods of lapse in samadhi, are seamlessly fused.

The process of which involves, just as you said, departing from and returning to equipoise again and again, until habitual patterns and obscurations are exhausted to a degree that the “view” becomes unfragmented.

Very refreshing to see this process mirrored in the Zen path.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 14th, 2018 at 6:25 AM
Title: Re: Kenshō the first Bhumi?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Realization and insight are always sudden and immediate

Astus said:
An unstable realisation is not realisation at all, only a passing feeling. Attaining a stage of the path means not losing it later.

krodha wrote:
The insight is what one does not lose, but the experiential equipoise resting in a direct knowledge of one’s nature does indeed come and go.

What remains is the insight, like seeing a snake in a dark room to actually be a rope, that insight is never lost. There is no way someone could convince you that the rope is a snake ever again.

Same goes for seeing the nature of phenomena. That insight never diminishes. But equipoise in jñāna does indeed lapse back into normal vijñāna because the view is unstable due to habitual patterns of grasping and conceptual proliferation.

Astus said:
but just as in other Buddhist systems, that knowledge is unstable and must be carefully cultivated from then on in order to eventually actualize buddhahood.
Knowledge does need actualisation, hence the process of learning, understanding, and cultivation. But then seeing nature would mean not the perception of buddha-mind, but merely the concept that mind is buddha.

krodha wrote:
Initial knowledge merely requires a recognition of the dharmatā of mind or phenomena. The equipoise that the knowledge results from is initially fragmented and unstable however.

Astus said:
Temicco shared some excerpts that demonstrate this
Clearly, there are various teachers with various teachings.

krodha wrote:
However these are Zen teachers, and their description of the path is very much like those we find elsewhere, such as Dzogchen for example. The fluctuation between equipoise and post-equipoise is a common theme.

Astus said:
I found this quite interesting, especially given the much asserted “non-gradual” view of Zen.
Yangshan said:

"The roots of delusion are deep. They’re difficult to cut off and uproot. So [the Buddha] established expedient means to grab your attention. These are like showing yellow leaves to a crying child, who imagines they’re gold and thus stops crying. You act as though you’re in a shop where someone sells a hundred goods made from gold and jade, but you’re trying to weigh each item. So you say that Shitou has a real gold shop? Well in my shop there’s a wide range of goods! If someone comes looking for mouse turds then I give him some. If someone comes looking for real gold then I give it to him."
(Zen's Chinese Heritage, p 187)

krodha wrote:
Again this goes back to the common misconception that those who practice Zen are actualizing buddhahood in one fell swoop. Sure, a rare few may have that capacity, but not the vast majority. Those with such capacity in Dzogchen for example haven’t been seen for hundreds of years according to the Dalai Lama, hence it is said they are rarer than stars in the daytime.

Astus said:
Evidently the equipoise and post-equipoise process that other systems deal with is also very much the case for Zen, and in this sense initial awakening can be viewed as something like first bhūmi, with equipoise beginning as fragmented and becoming slowly less so as obscurations are exhausted.
"Those with deluded minds appear to be cultivating and seeking buddhahood, but they are unenlightened to their self-natures. Hence are they of small capacities. If one is to be enlightened to the sudden teaching, one cannot cultivate externally (i.e., superficially): one should just constantly activate correct views in one’s own mind, and the enervating defilements of the afflictions will be rendered permanently unable to defile one. This is to see the nature."
(Platform Sutra, ch 2, p 32)

krodha wrote:
This is addressing those who have not yet known equipoise at all.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 14th, 2018 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: Kenshō the first Bhumi?
Content:
shanehanner said:
is Kenshō considered the first Bhumi

Astus said:
Going by the stages is the gradual path. Seeing nature means the realisation of buddha-mind, and as such it is the attainment of buddhahood.

"[The teaching that one can] cultivate the six perfections and the myriad practices in order to achieve Buddhahood—this is the progressive [approach to Buddhahood]. Since beginningless time, there has never been a Buddha [who achieved that state] progressively. Just be enlightened to the One Mind and there will not be the slightest dharma that can be attained—this is the true Buddha."
(Huangbo: Essentials of the Transmission of Mind, in Zen Texts, BDK ed, p 14)

krodha wrote:
Zen and Chan technically teach progressive refinement just as every other system does.

Realization and insight are always sudden and immediate, but just as in other Buddhist systems, that knowledge is unstable and must be carefully cultivated from then on in order to eventually actualize buddhahood.

Temicco shared some excerpts that demonstrate this:

From Yuanwu:
When you reach the point where feelings are ended, views are gone, and your mind is clean and naked, you open up to Zen realization. After that it is also necessary to develop consistency, keeping the mind pure and free from adulteration at all times. If there is the slightest fluctuation, there is no hope of transcending the world.
And,
Keep working like this, maintaining your focus for a long time still, to make your realization of enlightenment unbroken from beginning to end.
Shido Bunan states:
If you can really get to see your fundamental mind, you must treat it as though you were raising an infant. Walking, standing, sitting, lying down, illuminate everything everywhere with awareness, not letting him be dirtied by the seven consciousnesses. If you can keep him dear and distinct, it is like the baby's gradually growing up until he's equal to his father-calmness and wisdom dear and penetrating, your function will be equal to that of the buddhas and patriarchs.
From Hongren:
[E]ven though phenomena are essentially empty, it is necessary to preserve the basic true mind with perfect clarity, because then delusive thoughts do not arise, and egoism and possessiveness disappear.
Again from Shido Bunan:
Although our school considers enlightenment [satori] in particular to be fundamental, that doesn't necessarily mean that once you're enlightened you stop there. It is necessary only to practice according to reality and complete the way. According to reality means knowing the fundamental mind as it really is; practice means getting rid of obstructions caused by habitual actions by means of true insight and knowledge. Awakening to the way is comparatively easy; accomplishment of practical application is what is considered most difficult. That is why the great teacher Bodhidharma said that those who know the way are many, whereas those who carry out the way are few.
I found this quite interesting, especially given the much asserted “non-gradual” view of Zen. Evidently the equipoise and post-equipoise process that other systems deal with is also very much the case for Zen, and in this sense initial awakening can be viewed as something like first bhūmi, with equipoise beginning as fragmented and becoming slowly less so as obscurations are exhausted.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 13th, 2018 at 7:52 AM
Title: Re: Swat Valley/Oddiyana
Content:
passel said:
How is that different from a place that is not a power place?

krodha wrote:
The region in general is clearly a hotbed of conflict, tumultuous uprising and activity of the like.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 9th, 2018 at 12:00 PM
Title: Re: Who is America ?
Content:
krodha wrote:
The point isn’t to advocate for violence, but rather to convey that non-violent solutions are generally ineffective with these types of people.

Rinchen Samphel said:
Imagine if MLK had that view... Imagine how much more black people would have been beaten and/or died.

Anyone who tells others that violence is the only way to solve this (or any) situation are guiding those others to a lower rebirth. It is not a Bodhisattvas practice to think "oh, if i commit some non-virtues that are short term solutions here in samsara and i fall into a lower rebirth its all good because, hey, all for the benefit of others, right?" I dont think we should teach others that violence is a solution, because if it ever appears that way, no one will ever stop using it.

krodha wrote:
I’m not “teaching” others that violence is a solution. Merely noting that it was the only thing that worked with the fascists that used to plague our community.

The people involved in the situations I’m referring to weren’t practitioners, nor was I a practitioner back then, so the Buddhist angle while appropriate for this forum, was inapplicable to the situation ten or fifteen plus years ago I am referencing.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 9th, 2018 at 11:35 AM
Title: Re: Who is America ?
Content:
krodha wrote:
The point isn’t to advocate for violence, but rather to convey that non-violent solutions are generally ineffective with these types of people.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 9th, 2018 at 11:03 AM
Title: Re: Who is America ?
Content:
krodha wrote:
A lot of fascists were routinely punched when I was a kid going to punk rock shows in the Bay Area. Some were killed unfortunately. The violence was effective. We didn’t have nazis in the Bay Area scene.

Nowadays things are different. The older crews who had the zero tolerance policies towards fascism have, well, gotten older, and they aren’t around as much as active members in the scene. As a result there’s been a resurgence of nazis.

While it is sad it takes violence to deter fascism, I agree wholeheartedly it is the most effective method.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 21st, 2018 at 6:54 AM
Title: Re: Immutable Nature of the Primordial State
Content:
smcj said:
Saying it is separate and Real is just adding emphasis.

krodha wrote:
Is it though?


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, July 20th, 2018 at 10:26 PM
Title: Re: rtsal, shared samsaric vision, “other” sentient beings
Content:
krodha wrote:
The view is that the so-called external world is not mind, nor is it other than mind.

Adepts such as Longchenpa were very cautious in their explanation of this issue and are in no way advocating for a concrete, artifact-like external world.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, July 20th, 2018 at 10:04 PM
Title: Re: Immutable Nature of the Primordial State
Content:
Matt J said:
I struggle to see any difference between shentong and a Madhyamaka-Yogacara synthesis. If I recall correctly, Brunnholzl makes the argument that what is called shentong is simply that.

krodha wrote:
In any case, gzhan stong as a view in itself is at odds with Dzogchen... however describing Dzogchen as a Madhyamaka-Yogācāra synthesis is perfectly acceptable.
The defining and novel aspects of gzhan stong are its mapping of the three natures of Yogācāra over the two truths, which ends up compromising the intention of both Yogācāra (3N) and Madhyamaka (2T).

Also gzhan stong’s interpretation of Buddha qualities and the kāyas, specifically how they are treated in the basis, path and result schematic is absolutely in conflict with Dzogchen. Gzhan stong states that the kāyas are fully formed at the time of the basis and are fully established at the time of the result, nothing like this is found in Dzogchen.

Then there is gzhan stong’s novel interpretation of the five treatises, which is unrelated to Dzogchen but a sticking point for many.

Dzogchen synthesizes Yogācāra and Madhyamaka quite well. The same cannot be said for gzhan stong, which is wrought with numerous issues.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, July 20th, 2018 at 7:45 AM
Title: Re: rtsal, shared samsaric vision, “other” sentient beings
Content:
jnanasutra said:
Hi all!

So, if all appearances are rtsal manifestations of the basis of each individual, then is it the case that the rtsal manifestations are shared “vision” among samsaric sentient beings?

Also, if all appearances are the energy of the basis of each individual, then how are appearances shared by sentient beings and how are sentient beings (with their individual consciousnesses) apparent to other sentient beings?  Wouldn’t the appearance of other sentient beings only be the rtsal manifestations of one’s own basis?

Thanks!

Dorje Shedrub said:
I had the understanding that there is one basis not many, and that sentient brings each perceive the play of rtsal through their own obscurations.

DS

krodha wrote:
The basis is the nature of your mind. Every sentient being is endowed with a mind and each mind has a nature. Therefore each sentient being has a basis.

Those bases are singular in expression, but numerous in number. Much like the wetness of water is singular in expression, for every expression of wetness is the same, but numerous in number, because there are countless bodies of water.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, July 20th, 2018 at 5:35 AM
Title: Re: Immutable Nature of the Primordial State
Content:
Malcolm said:
Nine of these passages support your claim.

krodha wrote:
Mine or smcj’s?


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, July 20th, 2018 at 5:30 AM
Title: Re: rtsal, shared samsaric vision, “other” sentient beings
Content:
krodha wrote:
The uniqueness of the Dzogchen cosmogony is maintained up through the onset of the imputing ignorance [kun brtags] and then the ālaya forms and you can look to the Yogācāra container universe model.

The collective traces of sentient beings manifest a common reality that coincides with the karmic disposition of the beings involved. Those beings can interact like we do in our everyday lives, and in more subtle ways, even influence each other’s perceptions like the woman who terrorized her village by appearing as a tiger, for example.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, July 20th, 2018 at 5:15 AM
Title: Re: rtsal, shared samsaric vision, “other” sentient beings
Content:
jnanasutra said:
Hi all!

So, if all appearances are rtsal manifestations of the basis of each individual, then is it the case that the rtsal manifestations are shared “vision” among samsaric sentient beings?

Also, if all appearances are the energy of the basis of each individual, then how are appearances shared by sentient beings and how are sentient beings (with their individual consciousnesses) apparent to other sentient beings?  Wouldn’t the appearance of other sentient beings only be the rtsal manifestations of one’s own basis?

Thanks!

krodha wrote:
Dzogchen defers to false-aspectarian Yogācāra principle of a container universe to explain this issue.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, July 19th, 2018 at 2:02 PM
Title: Re: Immutable Nature of the Primordial State
Content:
smcj said:
Page 300 of "The Big Red Book" in the chapter titled "Superiority of Atiyoga". Remember, he is not discussing sutra here. He is discussing Dzogchen and why it is superior to the lower 8 yanas.

Also worthy of note is the fact that he says that Nagarjuna/2nd Turning and Asanga/3rd Turning are both contained in Dzogchen. That is to be expected and does not negate my point. All Shentong view includes Nagarjuna. Elsewhere he explains that his interpretation of the 3rd Turning is "Great Madhyamaka" (a.k.a Shentong). Interestingly he includes the Dharmadhaturstava ("In Praise of Dharmadhatu") as one of Nagarjuna's. It certainly is not like Nagarjuna's other writings.

Now concerning this natural expression of the Great Perfection: The Sugata, during the intermediate promulgation of the transmitted precepts*, did not reveal the structure of the fundamental reality, though he did extensively teach the inconceivable, abiding nature without referring to symbols of elaborate conception. And, during the final promulgation**, though he did reveal the structure of the fundamental reality, he did not teach the characteristic path through which it is actualized. Therefore, the conclusive intention of the Two Promulgators*** actually abides without contradiction in the nature of the Great Perfection. This intention comprises the unaltered intention of the Collection of Madhyamaka Reasoning,, which consists of the commentaries on the intermediate promulgation by the sublime and supreme Nagarjuna; and his [ Collection of Eulogies ] including the Eulogy to the Expanse of Reality ****, and the commentaries by the regent Maitreya, the sublime and supreme Asanga, and his brother [Vasabandhu] and so forth, which together form the intention of the final [promulgation]. If one were to ask why this is the case, it is because these masters did not claim anything other than the profound abiding nature of natural reality, and because the Great Perfection itself is none other than that.
(bolding/underlining mine)

So he says, "... during the intermediate promulgation of the transmitted precepts, did not reveal the structure of the fundamental reality ".

But he then say of Asanga/Vasabandhu, "....because these masters did not claim anything other than the profound abiding nature of natural reality...,"

So he accepts the 3rd Turning as being "profound abiding nature of natural reality, and because the Great Perfection itself is none other than that.

So Dudjom R. had no problem utilizing the 3 Turning paradigm to explain and define how Dzogchen is superior to the other yanas. Since he saw it as appropriate, so do I.


*****

*a.k.a. The 2nd Turning of the Wheel of Dharma
**a.k.a. The 3rd Turning of the Wheel of Dharma
*** Nagarjuna and Asanga
****Available in English as "In Praise of Dharmadhatu"

******

All this is in regards to Dudjom R's interpretation of Dzogchen. Evidently he is an outlier in this among Nyingmapas. However Kongtrul also has a Shentong view of Dzogchen, and he is not an outlier among Karma Kagyupas. So at least one major school supports that idea within the context of Dzogchen specifically.

krodha wrote:
Is the “third turning” gzhan stong or just Yogācāra? Seems only Yogācāra is being referenced in the excerpt despite the assertion that his use of “third turning” is supposed to be a reference to gzhan stong.

In any case, gzhan stong as a view in itself is at odds with Dzogchen... however describing Dzogchen as a Madhyamaka-Yogācāra synthesis is perfectly acceptable.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, July 13th, 2018 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: all or nothing? what will it be....
Content:
krodha wrote:
The Buddhist view of emptiness is an epistemic insight into the misconception of ontological entities which reveals ontology is truly impossible.

Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
Negation of ontology is also impossible.

krodha wrote:
A perception of ontological status is a figment of ignorance.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, July 2nd, 2018 at 10:58 AM
Title: Re: Mipham Rinpoche channels Weinstein:
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Snowbear, you’ve got to understand that for  a lot of guys on this board Malcolm is like some kind of god and whatever he says is gospel, even when it contradicts other things he’s said.

Snowbear said:
For saying what everyone knows but doesn't want to say, he deserves the title.

krodha wrote:
Neither of you have any businesss speaking for, or representing how this forum collectively feels about or perceives anyone or anything, in any capacity.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 30th, 2018 at 12:04 AM
Title: Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
Content:
haha said:
Now, there are Buddhist masters and texts that talk about mind essence or self-existing wakefulness (Rangjung Yeshe). If one cannot distinguish between these two (i.e. Withness and self-existing wakefulness), one will definitely dwell in the middle of both assertions for a long time.

krodha wrote:
“Self-existing wakefulness” is a very misleading gloss of rang byung ye shes.

Rangjung means “self-arising” or “self-originated” in the sense of coming from your own mind or consciousness, and not somewhere else. Your yeshe, manifests through insight into the nature of your own mind, it cannot be given to you by anyone else. That is the meaning of “rang byung.”

The term really has nothing to do with a self-existing wakefulness, despite the unfortunate prevalence of this translation, which undoubtedly causes much confusion.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, June 28th, 2018 at 4:10 PM
Title: Re: all or nothing? what will it be....
Content:
Supramundane said:
Buddhism is like the negative photo of Hinduism: Buddhism sees the self as ultimately empty, and if everything is empty, then all is One too.

krodha wrote:
Phenomena that are empty are unfindable. It is impossible to posit a universal or singular entity if no entities can be located.

Hinduism, specifically non-dual Vedanta, Samkhya and so on, is proposing an ontological position.

The Buddhist view of emptiness is an epistemic insight into the misconception of ontological entities which reveals ontology is truly impossible.

The two views are quite different.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, June 28th, 2018 at 8:59 AM
Title: Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
Content:
↑ said:
this master must have refined his insight to a degree that others have not.

tomschwarz said:
There no accomplishment that you or any master (even crazy wise ones) will ever attain, that othrs have not.  Think of enlightenment as subtraction more than addition (see removing obscuration/buddha nature/etc...).   Dont forget, conciousness is one of the twelve links of dependent origination.   Dont go there.  Then where to go?

krodha wrote:
Advaita Vedanta, the system they are referring to, is a different path... and this suggestion that they refined their insight more so than other Advaitains, who seem to get caught up with a certain degree of insight, is not something I made up.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, June 28th, 2018 at 2:39 AM
Title: Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
Content:
Rick said:
Brahman, taught right, is just a metaphor/raft to be left behind at "the other shore." But it's the last, stickiest metaphor to go in Advaita.

krodha wrote:
That is debatable. An Advaita teacher I know said that he’s only encountered a single master of Advaita state that even Brahman or consciousness is not found at the end of the Advaitin path.

According to him this position is incredibly novel and he theorizes that this master must have refined his insight to a degree that others have not.

This statement was also not published publicly, perhaps because of its controversial nature.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 26th, 2018 at 2:00 AM
Title: Re: Is everything "one" or are we just inter-connected without a center?
Content:
smcj said:
Correction: Situ R’s “Ground, Path and Friution” Rangtong Ma-yin-gag view.

krodha wrote:
Correction to what?


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 26th, 2018 at 1:55 AM
Title: Re: Is everything "one" or are we just inter-connected without a center?
Content:
smcj said:
Khenpo Tsultrim is one of the leading proponents of the Karma Kagyu view on Shentong alive today. And he is certainly aware of the taboo of having the same view as Advaita Vedanta. So when Malcolm bragged...
Malcolm said:
I once forced Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso to admit (I have a witness, incidentally) that there was no substantial difference between Advaita Vedanta and Gzhan stong in terms of how they presented their view.

smcj said:
...that either means that Malcolm made it up, or that he had Khenpo cornered so that he couldn’t escape admitting to it. Personally I have enough regard for Malcolm’s expertise that I see his victory as completely plausible.

krodha wrote:
Gzhan stong and Advaita both promulgate an ultimate truth that is devoid of what is considered to be relative.

Also gzhan stong’s ultimate nature, in terms of the result, is fully formed at the time of their basis. The purusa of Advaita is also fully formed at all times.

Nothing about monism is proposed on gzhan stong’s side.

smcj said:
Plus, in Kongtrul’s ToK Book 1, “Myriad Worlds”, the last cosmology he speaks of is the Dzogchen cosmology. He makes sure to preface the discussion as to how Ultimate Reality is before there are any sentient beings or buddhas inhabiting it. That’s kinda Advaita like, don’t ya think?

krodha wrote:
Certainly not.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 26th, 2018 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: Is everything "one" or are we just inter-connected without a center?
Content:
smcj said:
The Buddha specifically and categorically denied that view.
True, Sakyamuni specifically and categorically denied that view. No doubt about that.

But all the Karmapas since Ranjung Dorje (Karmapa III, 1284-1339) have embraced it. So it kinda depends on which authority you’re referencing.

krodha wrote:
You seem to enjoy molding gzhan stong into whatever you want it to be, rather than meeting it on its own terms.

Perhaps your affinity in general revolves around your perceived malleability of the system since non-gzhan stong systems rob you of that leeway.

Gzhan stong is not a monistic view and does not advocate for a “oneness.”


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 20th, 2018 at 9:15 PM
Title: Re: Thoughts on Dzogchen without buddhism?
Content:
Lingpupa said:
I know this is only part of the way back to the original topic, but I wanted to share this: a bit of digging turns up strong evidence (I'd put it at 98% confidence) that "omega point" is a pen name for one Daniel Ingram.

Make of it what you will.

krodha wrote:
Could be, but this Omega Point character has always been a big advocate of tummo, etc., which seems uncharacteristic of Ingram. However maybe Ingram is using an alias precisely for that reason.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 20th, 2018 at 10:38 AM
Title: Re: Thoughts on Dzogchen without buddhism?
Content:
krodha wrote:
What is unconvincing or does not make sense, for example?

Widur said:
The whole preoccupation with painting the samsaric modes of becoming as a perpetual tragedy of endless suffering, thus stirring denigrating judgments and devaluations, cultivating aversions, cultivating volitions to cessate it all, escape it all, devalue it all, contriving it all, for one's own sake and for the benefit of all others that are likewise trapped. The picture that comes to me is how one is throwing oneself at the stranger one meet wandering under the open sky, trying to convince him he is not in fact wandering freely over the trackless ground, he is in reality confined, imprisoned, chained and suffering.

krodha wrote:
Sentient beings unfortunately are confined and suffering due to their ignorance regarding their nature.

Even those with some experience with insights into their nature are still for the most part, confined and subject to suffering.

This is accurate, Buddhism or not. Dzogchen with or without Buddhism, this is still the case.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 19th, 2018 at 10:47 AM
Title: Re: Thoughts on Dzogchen without buddhism?
Content:
Widur said:
..but I'm afraid I find the buddhist underpinnings not very convincing at all. I have ordered and read some books about dzogchen, and while much of it makes very much sense, the parts occupying themselves with buddhist philosophy and assumptions do not.

krodha wrote:
What is unconvincing or does not make sense, for example?


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 13th, 2018 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: non-physical heat during dzogchen meditation
Content:
ZOOM said:
Thank you for the advice, I surely will return from time to time to read the news.

krodha wrote:
Unlike taobums there are genuine and well-informed practitioners who post here, but you can’t come into this space convinced you already know, or know better than others.

If you can even feign the attitude that others may have something to offer, you will indeed learn something.

You and I used to interact on taobums, years ago, I don’t frequent that forum anymore, but based off our previous discussions I believe you would benefit from interactions here.

Perhaps keep an open mind, and be mindful of any inkling of pride that may deter you from listening.

Many here do the same practices you do, certainly far more than any other forum, by a vast percentage. I assure you this is the right place to discuss the practices you are fond of in a structured and respectful way. Within reason of course.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 13th, 2018 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: non-physical heat during dzogchen meditation
Content:
Vasana said:
Can we try?

krodha wrote:
Would be nice to see.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 13th, 2018 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: non-physical heat during dzogchen meditation
Content:
Norwegian said:
ZOOM,

If you don't have a qualified teacher of Dzogchen, there is no Dzogchen to be practiced.

krodha wrote:
This guy used to post on the taobums forums as well. Obsessed with men ngag practices and thinks teachers have no purpose.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 5th, 2018 at 10:37 PM
Title: Re: Via Negativa
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Languages and religions differ everywhere but hearts and lungs all work the same.

krodha wrote:
Salt and sugar are different words but are all the same when placed in our mouths because our function of taste works the same.

Salt and sugar are visually similar but are all the same when placed in our mouths because our function of taste works the same.

Salt and sugar are similar in consistency when touched but are all the same when placed in our mouths because our function of taste works the same.

These three assertions are bold claims, and more importantly are known to be absolutely false according to those who have tasted salt and sugar.

Likewise, your claim that buddhadharma and sanatanadharma are identical or too similar to distinguish in taste is known to be absolutely false by those who have properly practiced them and have actualized the species of experiential insight championed by each.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 5th, 2018 at 2:44 PM
Title: Re: Via Negativa
Content:
Wayfarer said:
The underlying logic is similar to 'neti, neti' (although of course Buddhism will always wish to differentiate itself from Vedanta.) But then, there's also similarly apophatic teachings in Christianity, for example the perennial mediation manual, The Cloud of Unknowing.

krodha wrote:
A dubious claim, and yet again you reference this purported need for the buddhadharma to be nominally different from sanatanadharma, et al.

That they may be drastically different on an experiential level appears to be a preposterous notion in your eyes.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 5th, 2018 at 1:23 PM
Title: Re: Via Negativa
Content:
Rick said:
In Advaita, the only thing that cannot be negated (seen to be ultimately un-real) is one's own existence: I Am. (I'm not opening a conversation about Advaita vs. Buddhism. Been there, done that! I just used Advaita as an example of a tradition that relies on via negativa negation.)

Is there anything that cannot be negated in Buddhism? Can one's existence be negated? Or would it be right-er in Buddhism to say: I neither am, nor am not, nor neither, nor both? To what extent does the answer depend on the Buddhist school/tradition?

krodha wrote:
What Buddhists do not negate is (i) that appearances manifest, (ii) conventions are useful tools and (iii) the path and result have soteriological value.

Apart from that nothing is findable, and nothing is truly found in the three aforementioned points just listed.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2018 at 8:28 AM
Title: Re: Shakyamuni stabilizing his wisdom?
Content:
Temicco said:
To my knowledge, sutras do not generally present a system where you alternate between equipoise and post-equipoise, and where equipoise becomes more stable with some work to stabilize it, and where you accord with the unborn more fully and operate more freely the more you cultivate the expression of your insight.

krodha wrote:
Apparently the Dasabhumika sūtra is one of the first texts that discusses equipoise and post-equipoise.

Temicco said:
Thanks for the tip; looks like I have a lot of reading to do. Can I ask where you heard this from?

krodha wrote:
From Malcolm, I don't have a link to the exact thread.

He wrote in the same discussion:
There is a distinction between equipoise and post-equipoise which exists right up to the last moment of the tenth bhumi.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2018 at 7:52 AM
Title: Re: Shakyamuni stabilizing his wisdom?
Content:
Temicco said:
To my knowledge, sutras do not generally present a system where you alternate between equipoise and post-equipoise, and where equipoise becomes more stable with some work to stabilize it, and where you accord with the unborn more fully and operate more freely the more you cultivate the expression of your insight.

krodha wrote:
Apparently the Dasabhumika sūtra is one of the first texts that discusses equipoise and post-equipoise.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2018 at 2:04 PM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Sherab Rigdrol said:
What a shitshow.

Anyways, I highly recommend that those of you who are conflating tirthika views with dzogchen to please read The Mind Beyond Papers by Elias Capriles as he succinctly and painstakingly details out the differences of views and results.  Most gnostic and advaita vedanta "realizations" are simply the formless realms, as well as the alayavijnana.

I for one believe Garab Dorje's 3 statements as being sufficient enough.  Without Direct Introduction there is no path and result.  So these other systems have no Direct Introduction, thus no path or result.  Seems pretty simple.  Then again this board thrives on circular thinking.

krodha wrote:
Elias has another brief write-up titled Transpersonal and Holotropic Delusion on this same subject.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2018 at 5:52 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Just doesn't add up fellas...

dzogchungpa said:
With all due respect, fella, I don't give a flying f*&k about what you think does or doesn't add up.

krodha wrote:
You should declare this loudly to all the kids when you conclude your magic performances.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2018 at 5:45 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Does this then mean there are countless gods, as the individual natures of countless sentient being's minds, that do not actually create anything? That would be the consequence.

Why call it a god at that point?

monktastic said:
I don't really know. I have my guesses but don't intend to pollute this forum with them. Why call it an "all-creating king?"

krodha wrote:
Because all of supposed creation spawns from a failure to accurately apprehend the dynamic display of your own mind.

The collective error of countless sentient beings ends up coalescing into this apparent universe.

Thus the mind apparently creates all without actually creating anything. As described in the Guhyagarbha Tantra:

The wonder of it! This marvelous, astounding event/reality (Dharma): From that which involves no origination, everything originates; and in that very origination, there is no origination! The wonder of it! In it's very enduring, there is no enduring! The wonder of it! In it's very cessation, there is no cessation!


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2018 at 5:01 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Just doesn't add up fellas... especially when masters such as Norbu Rinpoche and Yongdzin Rinpoche say different. The latter states you break samaya holding this view.

monktastic said:
I don't know exactly how to reconcile it, but it doesn't bother me. The "all-creating king" is a literary device pointing at your own mind. "God" is another device pointing at the same thing, AFAICT. Of course there can't be a literal God anywhere (because emptiness), but that doesn't mean it can't be a remarkably useful pointer. There's no Real Buddha anywhere either.

These are all just my own limitations, of course. We work with what we have.

krodha wrote:
Does this then mean there are countless gods, as the individual natures of countless sentient being's minds, that do not actually create anything? That would be the consequence.

Why call it a god at that point?


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2018 at 4:39 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
krodha wrote:
To add, Malcolm pointed out to me the other weekend in Santa Fe, which was a wonderful event by the way, that the Rig pa rang shar also states that tirthika non-dual views are untenable in the context of Dzogchen.

Not to mention the fact that the same text rejects 360 different views, the teachings of Adi Śankhara being one of them, with Śankhara listed by name.

How a teacher in any serious capacity can then say that one's view of Vedanta and Dzogchen are interchangeable is concerning to say the least.

It is one thing to say that like Vedanta, Dzogchen states that our notion of what is ultimately the case comes from within. But that is at best a surface level similarity.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2018 at 4:26 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
monktastic said:
Spelare: For what it's worth, my own guru (Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche) made it abundantly clear that the concept of God I learned from Vedanta is exactly the right way of looking at things (and the right direction in which to pray) -- as long as it's understood that this "God" is inside, not outside. Of course, that's also what my Vedanta guru taught me, but there was no reason to argue

krodha wrote:
Just doesn't add up fellas... especially when masters such as Norbu Rinpoche and Yongdzin Rinpoche say different. The latter states you break samaya holding this view.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2018 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Out of curiosity, how do the pro-syncretic individuals contributing to this thread propose to synthesize whatever form of Christianity you are championing with a system such as Dzogchen?

smcj said:
ChNN: Most Westerners receive a Christian education and in the Christian tradition God is very diffused. God is recognized as something outside. They don’t know that God is in our real nature. If you have that knowledge and you are reading the bible, you can see there are many words that indicate God means our real nature. But then it developed in a more dualistic way. When they started to say, “the unique God governing all universe”, then it became easy to think God is governing everything. But it does not correspond in the real condition. So it is very important when you follow the Dzogchen Teachings, that you really understand what God means. It is not necessary to wonder if God exists or not. Some people are worried there is no God in Buddhism. In Buddhism there are so many kinds of gods, but Buddhists do not speak of the unique God. The essence of Buddhist teaching is Dzogchen, which is the final teaching of the Buddha Shakyamuni. Through Dzogchen we can really understand what God is and we don’t have to worry if there is a God or not. God always exists as our real nature, the base, for everybody
Are you dismissive of ChNN as being pro-syncretic?

krodha wrote:
Rinpoche is not being syncretic, he is speaking to westerners who may harbor certain feelings about God and telling them not to worry or speculate about such a thing because after acquiring a working knowledge of the nature of their mind, said speculation will be put to rest.

That Christianity as we know it today, may have been derived from some sort of gnostic insight is most likely true, however the assertion that the nature of said gnostic insight is identical to the species of prajñā championed by Dzogchen is a stretch. I see no evidence in the works of these Christian contemplatives that their insight is any different than that of the substantialist tirthika dharmas such as Samkhya or Advaita. And even then it appears much less refined.

Most every religion is likely predicated on certain individuals experiences with altered states of consciousness that were later interpreted within the confines of a specific culture.

However not all altered states of consciousness are created equal, and not all cultures exist in a region that is conducive to a refinement of understanding. Even East Asian buddhadharma sometimes gravitates towards substantialism as a result of its distance from the polemical climate of India. Tibetan Buddhism was in close proximity to India and as a result its tenets and practices are much more refined and distinct.

Early contemplative Christians appear to be little more than people who figured out you could access deeper states of consciousness through mediative practice. Some undoubtedly encountered more refined states like those championed in Advaita Vedanta, and called that expression of consciousness "God."

I see no indication that this so-called "God" resembles the nature of mind as championed by Dzogpachenpo.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2018 at 1:55 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Out of curiosity, how do the pro-syncretic individuals contributing to this thread propose to synthesize whatever form of Christianity you are championing with a system such as Dzogchen?

How are the two similar in terms of the principles they champion?

No entity or principle survives the path of Dzogchen. One would think you would want this god to be affirmed at the end of the day, yet Dzogchen would rob you of this, as it compromises every attribute of its own process in the end.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2018 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Aryjna said:
Disparaging refers to pointing out the faults of these religions to their followers, being contemptuous or offensive. It does not mean one should not see their errors. In this case even bringing up disparaging other religions is completely out of place as this is a Buddhist forum.

treehuggingoctopus said:
Actually,  what I have heard directly contradicted your reading. Garchen was very clear about it,  and he was not the only one.

krodha wrote:
"Disparaging" would be gallivanting around openly declaring that followers of X religion or system are idiots, insulting said people to their face, telling others to shun them, etc.

Which is quite different than constructively comparing and contrasting systems so that one can better understand one's own.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2018 at 12:14 PM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Spelare said:
At what stage does fascination with rugby or card games perish?  Can't we just find things intrinsically interesting?  Calvinist theology is fascinating.  I know it pretty well, and also that it's not going to save me.  But that allows me to enjoy it more, not less.

krodha wrote:
If you know it won't save you then you don't have a serious interest in it.

By "serious" I mean a discipline you are implementing as a means to liberate yourself.

Spelare said:
you perennialists
You keep using this term "perennialist" as if it refers to a single, well-defined position and approach.  It doesn't.  You seem to consistently equate it with an "anything goes" mentality of haphazard syncretism.  Whereas what I am suggesting is more like an extension of the rimé approach to our contemporary globalized context.

krodha wrote:
That is called "perennialism." You, yourself said you believe there is a single mountain that all systems climb.

Spelare said:
You explore different approaches while keeping an understanding of what is distinctive about each.  And you may commit yourself especially to a particular tradition, as I have.

krodha wrote:
Yet you believe the other approaches are equal in their soteriological value.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2018 at 11:42 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:




krodha wrote:
Fascination with tirthika tenet systems, beyond the pale of surface level interest, perishes at the bee stage.

Kunga Lhadzom said:
As a bee seeks nectar
from all kinds of flowers,
seek teachings everywhere.

Like a deer that finds a quiet place to graze,
seek seclusion to digest all you have gathered.

Like a lion, live completely free of all fear.
And, finally, like a madman, beyond all limits,
go wherever you please.

From: The Crystal and the Way of Light: Sutra, Tantra and Dzogchen (Tibetan Buddhist Philosophy – accelerated path to self-perfection)
by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

krodha wrote:
Right. Serious interest in tirthika dharmas is not intended to survive the initial stage.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2018 at 11:17 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:


dzogchungpa said:
As a bee seeks nectar
from all kinds of flowers,
seek teachings everywhere.

Like a deer that finds a quiet place to graze,
seek seclusion to digest all you have gathered.

Like a lion, live completely free of all fear.
And, finally, like a madman, beyond all limits,
go wherever you please.


krodha wrote:
Fascination with tirthika tenet systems, beyond the pale of surface level interest, perishes at the bee stage.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2018 at 11:14 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Spelare said:
They proceed on an empirical basis, observing their own experience carefully. What they certainly don't do is memorize a single recipe book and get frustrated if they encounter a working situation that doesn't conform exactly to what they prepared for.  They are able to work with circumstances.

krodha wrote:
Generally, the experiential insights that flower from keen empirical observation will negate the ontological positions that traditions such as Christianity are based upon.

And in that sense you perennialists are the ones becoming frustrated when you encounter a situation that contradicts your preconceived notions.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2018 at 11:54 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Spelare said:
So, in a way, this answers the question of what ChNN was doing talking about God and Jesus.  He's in good company when we look at what Buddhist tantrikas did from early on.

krodha wrote:
What are you under the impression that the Buddhist tantrikas did early on?

Spelare said:
In that sense, what he said is not innovative, but in keeping with tradition.  It just looks innovative to us because we're used to a contemporary Western way of holding religions as closed canons that are unalterable, and where borrowing automatically entails a lamentable syncretism.  These things were certainly regarded differently in Asia, and still are to a degree.

krodha wrote:
Evidently they are not regarded differently based on the outright negation of other systems we find in the Dzogchen tantras.

Spelare said:
It's like we're unwilling to be mentally supple in this particular regard, in spite of all that our tradition has taught us about such suppleness being worth cultivating.

krodha wrote:
This would be a misguided application of said suppleness.

Spelare said:
Masters like ChNN have no problem reading the Bible and its major figures from a Dzogchen perspective.

krodha wrote:
ChNN is doing his best to appeal to western students.

Spelare said:
They can view God as a conceptual stand-in for our real nature. And why not?

krodha wrote:
There are various reasons why not.

Spelare said:
Why not allow the scriptures, legends, and luminaries of other traditions to be encoded for you as reminders of the Dzogchen view?

krodha wrote:
Because they aren't. Again, I'm not a perennialist. Although I was at one time.

Spelare said:
Surely seeing them in that way is more in line with pure vision than feeling some need to avoid them. They are going to be encountered, so let them be seen as ornaments rather than as defilements.

krodha wrote:
The tenets and principles of their system(s) are at odds with Dzogchen.

Spelare said:
And you can do this knowing full well that the overwhelming majority of those around you in a given church, mosque, or synagogue do not share your understanding. That their views are not ones with the potential to liberate. But you can, at least, have the minimal knowledge that enables you to be in relation and dialogue rather than holding yourself apart.

krodha wrote:
Why would I hold myself apart? I'm not a rude individual.

Spelare said:
You can enjoy the religious expressions of others while seeing clearly and not falling into confusion!

krodha wrote:
No one suggested otherwise.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2018 at 11:41 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Spelare said:
My view is that God has never been a separate, transcendent entity. But that he was created by us as a projection out of ourselves, into the sky, of what is actually entirely innate to us. It is a kind of category error, yes, though one that has given rise to fascinating cultural permutations.

krodha wrote:
I still have a hard time seeing how any notion of a god is applicable.

Also, you are a perennialist and believe all of these traditions are addressing a single truth in numerous ways. I do not share this sentiment.

Spelare said:
But, in that case, why then can't we, as Dzogchenpas, make the same move when we encounter the deities and texts of the Abrahamic religions that are so prevalent in our lived environment? Why can't we do the same when we hear about Brahman, Śiva, etc? It seems like there's now this purism about it that fears we will corrupt our view. Whereas the Dzogchenpas and Buddhist tantrikas of earlier eras apparently had no such qualms.

krodha wrote:
They did have qualms given that they flatly rejected such views.

Where would a Brahman or a god fit into the Dzogchen view? They are completely foreign ideas that do not correspond to the Dzogchen teachings.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2018 at 9:38 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Norwegian said:
Or as the great Dharmakirti put it, on the belief in God: " [It's] the mark of the crass stupidity of witless men. "

liuzg150181 said:
Dharmakirti is the Richard Darwins of Buddhism?

krodha wrote:
*Dawkins


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2018 at 8:34 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Spelare said:
Indeed, that is the intent.  However, much of the language of Kunjed Gyalpo sounds like it could have been borrowed from a Hindu scripture

krodha wrote:
Many Buddhists texts use subversive rhetoric. The Kun byed rgyal po was not novel in that regard.

Spelare said:
and not only the title.  Do we know that this deiform language was always understood in that way by its proponents and any detractors there may have been?

krodha wrote:
The Dzogchen tantras are quite clear about their view, one would have to do serious violence to the literature in order to justify some sort of theistic spin.

Spelare said:
Also, aside from the linguistic aspect, how was yidam practice defended in Indian and Tibetan contexts?

krodha wrote:
You'll have to be more specific.

In any case, is it your opinion that the aforementioned rhetoric in the Dzogchen tantras was originally intended to be theistic? Your line of inquiry seems to continually insinuate that this is your view.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2018 at 7:10 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Spelare said:
So, how would these great scholars of pramāṇa regard the metaphorical use of phrases like "all-creating king" in Dzogchen tantras?  I'm curious if anyone knows how such language was formally justified in a historical Buddhist context, either Indian or Tibetan.

krodha wrote:
Vasubandhu and Dharmakīrti were Yogācārins. Dzogchen is a Madhyamaka-Yogācāra synthesis in terms of view. Given that the "all creating king" is only intended to refer to your own mind, there is nothing for Yogācārins to object to in that sense.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2018 at 6:48 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Here is Vasubandhu's critique, from his Abhidharmakosabhasyam:

All the dharmas that arise arise by reason of the five causes and the four conditions that we have just explained. The world does not proceed from a single cause that is called God, or Purusa, or Pradhana, or any other name.

How do you prove this thesis?
If you think that the thesis is proven through arguments, you betray your doctrine that the world arises from a single cause.

64d. Not from God or from any other cause, since there is a succession, etc.
That things are produced by a single cause, by God, Mahadeva, or Vasudeva, is inadmissable for many reasons.

1.) If things were produced by a single cause, they would arise all at the same time: now each of us knows that they arise successively.

[The Theist:] They arise successively by virtue of the desires of God, who says, "May this arise now! May this perish now! May this arise and perish later!"

If this were the case, then things do not arise from a single cause, since the desires (of God) are multiple. Moreover these multiple desires would have to be simultaneous, since God, the cause of these desires, is not multiple, and things would all arise at the same time.

a. [The Theist:] The desires of God are not simultaneous, because God, in order to produce his desires, takes into account other causes.

If this were so, then God is not the single unique cause of all things. And the causes that God takes into account are produced successively: they depend then on causes which are themselves dependent on other causes: an infinite regression.

[The Theist:] It is admitted that the series of causes has no beginning.

This would admit that samsara does not have an origin. You then abandon the doctrine of a single cause and return to the Buddhist theory of causes (hetus) and conditions (pratyaya).

b. [The Theist:] The desires of God are simultaneous, but things do not arise at the same time because they arise as God wishes them to arise, that is, in succession.

This is inadmissible. The desires of God remain what they are. Let us explain. Suppose that God desires "May this arise now! May that arise later!" We do not see why the second desire, at first nonefficacious, will be efficacious later; why, if it is efficacious later, it will not be so initially.

What advantage does God obtain from this great effort by which he produces the world?

[The Theist:] God produces the world for his own satisfaction (ptiti).

He is then not God, the Sovereign (Isvara), in what concerns his own satisfaction, since he cannot realize it without a means (upaya). And if he is not sovereign with regard to his own satisfaction, how can he be sovereign with regard to the world? 

Further, do you say that God finds satisfaction in seeing the creatures that he has created in the prey of all the sufferings of existence, including the tortures of the hells? Homage to this God! Well said, in truth, is the popular stanza, "He is called Rudra because he burns, because he is excited, ferocious, terrible, an eater of flesh, blood, and marrow"

3.) The followers of God, the single cause of the world, deny visible causes,—causes and conditions,—the efficacy of the seed with regard to the sprout, etc. If, modifying their position, they admit the existence of these causes, and pretend that these causes serve God as auxiliaries, this then is no more that a pious affirmation, for we do not maintain any activity of a cause besides the activity of the so-called secondary causes. Furthermore, God would not be sovereign with regard to auxiliary causes, since these cooperate in the production of the effect through their own efficacy. Perhaps, in order to avoid the negation of causes, which are visible, and in order to avoid the affirmation of present action by God, which is not visible, the Theist would say that the work of God is creation: but creation, dependent only on God, would never have a beginning, like God himself, and this is a consequence that the Theist rejects.

We would refute the doctrine of Purusa, of Pradhana, etc., as we have refuted the theist doctrine, mutatis mutandis. Thus, no dharma arises from a single cause.

Alas, persons are unclear! Like the birds and the animals, truly worth of pity, they go from existence to existence, accomplishing diverse actions; they experience the results of these actions and falsely believe that God is the cause of these results. (We must explain the Truth in order to put an end to this false conception.)


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2018 at 6:36 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Norwegian said:
Or as the great Dharmakirti put it, on the belief in God: " [It's] the mark of the crass stupidity of witless men. "

Spelare said:
I believe Dharmakīrti made such remarks in the context of critiquing Śaiva tantra.  Had he known of Buddhist tantric practice, he would likely have viewed it as a corruption of Buddhism and criticized it in similar terms.  I think most of us would disagree with such an assessment.

krodha wrote:
Vasubandhu roasted the notion of a creator deity (as a first cause) as well, so Dharmakīrti was familiar with the absurdity of the idea.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2018 at 6:05 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
pael said:
Do Theravada and Mahayana understand dependent origination same way?

Virgo said:
No.  Theravadins use it to understand the emptiness of persons.  Mahayanists use it to understand the emptiness of all phenomena.  Tantrikas, of course, are understanding it the same way, but also going beyond just emptiness alone.

Kevin...

krodha wrote:
Common Mahāyāna does not fixate on emptiness alone either, it just isn't as insistent about clarifying that emptiness always pertains to mind and appearances.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2018 at 3:12 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Kunga Lhadzom said:
But "God" could of ALWAYS BEEN HERE TOO...NO BEGINNING OR ENDING TO "HIM"....and we are Dependant Originally on this Creator Being.....maybe that's what ChNN means ?( And that's where the AdiBuddha (self created) comes in ?)

krodha wrote:
Definitely not.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2018 at 12:46 PM
Title: Re: Guess who said this?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Ah yes, another www. jesuswheel .net moment.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2018 at 6:07 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Spelare said:
I don't mean that that the initial awakening experience is all they need, but that in each of us are all the resources and capacity we need to develop that initial glimpse into full and sustained realization.  Whether we figure that out is another matter.  Obviously, the overwhelming majority who succeed in so doing benefit from the guidance of a living master.  But some fortunate few awaken without.  Attribute it to past-life merit if you will, or to the guidance of great masters who appear in the minds of beings through dreams, visions, and so on.

Certainly, it would be foolish to expect such blessings to arise in one's own case; it definitely isn't my experience.  But such accounts are found in the Indo-Tibetan tradition: of awakening through the guidance of masters not met in the flesh, and of students who are instantly liberated upon their first awakening.  Such instances don't undermine the need for most of us to be guided by realized teachers, but they do affirm the principle that awakening is intrinsic to our nature and without limits.

krodha wrote:
It is possible for initial awakening to occur without a support system, but no one is becoming liberated without a support system, meaning a qualified teacher, the correct teachings and expert guidance.

Those who reach non-regressive liberation instantly, like cig car bas, are no longer present in this degenerate age.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2018 at 6:01 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Spelare said:
But is it not equally true that our experiential insights may lead us to revise or abandon previously held views?

krodha wrote:
Sometimes, sure.

However there are also cases where the paths we become involved with either (i) experientially cultivate the very assumptions we enter them with, or (ii) experientially cultivate the assumptions we are taught.

And so "right view" becomes important.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2018 at 5:46 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Spelare said:
And suppose a formally Christian, Jewish, or whatever person does study Buddhist philosophy and then has a spontaneous realization of emptiness in their direct experience.  Why should they then go to the trouble of formal refuge?  Why need they affiliate or disaffiliate from any institution?  They have awakened in their own mind without any of those outward trappings, and have all they need to live a liberated life if they are sufficiently discerning.

krodha wrote:
Considering an initial instance of awakening, in whatever form, to qualify as "all one needs" in order to be liberated is a very misguided assertion. Especially if said individual merely stumbles into that insight without any support system.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2018 at 5:39 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Spelare said:
So, from what I understand, wrong view is a barrier to realization, and this is why non-Buddhists are said to be out of luck.  However, is it not characteristic of human experience that view, like all thoughts/concepts/mental stances, is intermittent?  We may have a deeper felt sense of that wrong view being true, but that conviction and its associated emotions are also intermittent.  No view is held consistently at all times, but is regularly punctuated by nonconceptual gaps.  And one's view may shift subtly or drastically in the course of moments, minutes, hours, days, months, years . . .

Now, why could not a non-Buddhist taste the true nature of self and things in a nonconceptual gap?  If emptiness is not itself a conceptual construct, shouldn't an uninstructed person be able to encounter it?

krodha wrote:
"View informing realization" means your underlying assumptions about mind and reality in general will more often than not, color your experiential insights. Realizations will conform to presuppositions.

Take the Advaitan who takes the passive knowing witness to be an ultimately substantial background substrate. That apparent attribute is assumed to be an unerring and unassailable characteristic of consciousness, and said practitioner will use that characteristic as an anchor in their practice, which will then be refined into its purest form as what the Advaitan considers to be their ultimate purusa.

For Buddhists, that same characteristic (revered by the Advaitan) is considered to be an afflictive byproduct of delusion. It is seen as faulty, ultimately erroneous and an obscuration. Jigme Lingpa, for example, states that those who mistake that substrate and its strata as definitive and something to be cultivated are "like blind men wandering in the desert without a guide."

Thus, even inferentially, our view can influence the way our path unfolds and will then lead to a different result.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2018 at 4:33 PM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:



Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2018 at 4:00 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:


dzogchungpa said:
Indeed. This thread, however, appears to be immortal.

Virgo said:
So it appears.

Kevin...

krodha wrote:
Not immortal, but definitely reborn. Here is its previous incarnation:

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=26425


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 19th, 2018 at 10:25 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Spelare said:
What if the "other" to whom you pray liberates you not as a reward for your faith but through revealing to you that you were never really bound?  That He is actually the basis of all you have ever experienced?  That "you" are a temporary appearance manifesting in, as, and through Him?

krodha wrote:
Hopefully "his" name is Papaji and "he's" teaching neo-Advaita replete with all the scare quotes over first, second and third person singular pronouns... because that is what it sounds like.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 19th, 2018 at 5:55 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Dorje Shedrub said:
I just gave three sources that disprove your statement, but I don't wish to argue.

krodha wrote:
My friend, there is no way you've "disproven" any assertions. You've only cited information you choose to consider valid.

There is alleged evidence both for and against the historical character, Jesus Christ. If forced to take a side I would align with the latter, but I have no vested interest in either side because the teachings of Jesus are wholly irrelevant to my life.

And that leads me to the main question: as a practitioner of the buddhadharma, why do you care?


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2018 at 10:07 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
smcj said:
There is actually no evidence for the historical personality, Jesus of Nazareth, apart from Christian sources.
Uh huh. And how many contemporaneous records do we have about Sakyamuni? Nāgārjuna? Padmasambhava? Milarepa?

krodha wrote:
Unlike Christianity, the integrity of the Buddhist teachings do not depend on the authenticity of these historical figures.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2018 at 9:23 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Fictional characters are capable of many feats. I just saw a film recently where a raccoon flew a vessel through outer space.

Dorje Shedrub said:
Though his attainments can be debated, there is evidence of the historical Jesus apart from the numerous Christian sources.

krodha wrote:
There is actually no evidence for the historical personality, Jesus of Nazareth, apart from Christian sources.

In fact there were twenty plus historians who lived in the region where Jesus allegedly travelled around performing miracles, directly during the time he supposedly lived, and not one of them mention any miracle performer, prophet or son of god.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2018 at 12:58 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I have it on good authority that anything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

krodha wrote:
A teaching that is "well spoken" in the context of Mahāyāna is one that accords with dependent origination, karma, cause and effect, emptiness, bodhicitta, etc.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2018 at 12:18 PM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Fictional characters are capable of many feats.

Kunga Lhadzom said:
Aren't we all fictional characters ?
I highly doubt you or i will go down in history for thousands of years....

krodha wrote:
I'm just stirring the pot.

In all honesty, the amount of avid Jesus fans who frequent this forum is surprising.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2018 at 10:31 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Kunga Lhadzom said:
Jesus performed many miracles....just like Enlightened Yogis.  So he must have been Enlightened.  Christianity is not an accurate representation of Jesus...just like Buddhism is not an accurate representation of Buddha.  Buddha was not a Buddhist. Jesus was not a Christian.

Can YOU walk on water ?
Can YOU raise the dead ?
Can YOU feed 5,000 + people with one loaf of bread ?
Can YOU cure leprosy ?
Can YOU change water into wine ?

Just to name a FEW things HE did.

krodha wrote:
Fictional characters are capable of many feats. I just saw a film recently where a raccoon flew a vessel through outer space.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2018 at 5:02 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Spelare said:
We're all on the same mountain, whether we know it or not.  Some are climbing it, and others are circling the base.

Some paths are more direct, others gradual, and still others quite tortuous.  Some reach dead ends, which require one to go back the way they came and take another path.

The shortest path is to recognize that one is only ever on the mountain.  Then even a foot that strays from "the path" remains on the path.

krodha wrote:
Or, different views, different paths, different results.

If view informs realization, which the buddhadharma states is the case, then there are many different mountains.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2018 at 1:27 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
emaho said:
I too was (and still am) reluctant to engage in this discussion, because it tends to lead to hostilities. - Not that there haven't been any hostilities yet, but it's much less than what I feared. Every time I think I should really ask the mods to close this thread something interesting comes up from which I'm learning, and then I change my mind and decide not to ask the mods.

krodha wrote:
The thread hasn't led to this type of hostility yet...


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2018 at 1:09 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Spelare said:
As we've seen on more than one occasion, many masters express greater open-mindedness than their disciples towards other traditions.

krodha wrote:
If I were a teacher I'd express open-mindedness towards monotheistic religions as well. Can you imagine the Dalai Lama or any other master openly deprecating monotheism? It would not go over well and would tarnish their image greatly.

Not to mention the fact it would potentially alienate individuals who may be interested in the buddhadharma.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2018 at 12:58 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
Chagdud too? Heretics. Horrible heretics, all of them.

emaho said:
tss, tss....

krodha wrote:
It's cool if you guys like God, you don't have to employ the slighted remarks, all that accomplishes is introducing a gateway drug that may cause you to descend into routine sniping like our resident expert, dzogchungpa the magician. You guys are better than that.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2018 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
smcj said:
As a generalization I think it safe to say that Tibetan lamas do not share--or even understand--our antipathy with "religion". They understand that we don't like monotheism, because they don't like it either. And they really don't understand how our antipathy towards Christianity gets imported into our approach to Dharma as preconditions and acceptable interpretations.

When we listen to the Dharma through the filter of, "...but that sounds like Christianity, so that obviously can't be what he really means..." we do ourselves a disfavor.

krodha wrote:
There is no buddhadharma that sounds like Christianity apart from the basic ethical pointers.

Also no one has advocated for importing any opinion of Christianity into dharma.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2018 at 4:20 PM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Vasana said:
As far as I can see, it's redeeming aspects viewed through the lense of the Buddha dharma are that the Christian  path results in rebirth in a particular heaven or in the human realm where there is a greater chance of meeting the dharma.

krodha wrote:
Christianity is the cause of such a rebirth? This is the first I've heard of such a notion.

Vasana said:
What is a truly decent human being? Beings and their propesnsities are context dependent. If you are born in a ghetto or difficult environment then surely it's better for the kids to learn morality and find meaning and community in their nearest available faith rather than from the streets.  How beings arrive at their ethical and moral compass is not as pertinent as the fact that they now have sown those seeds. I know many unethical atheists that engage in nonvirtue but I also know a few ethical Christians who practice various virtues. Who's in a more fortunate position?

krodha wrote:
And I know many ethical atheists who engage in virtue and also unethical Christians who engage in non-virtue.

Vasana said:
It is said that Bodhisattvas and Buddhas can appear in the heaven realms so I think they have a much greater possibility of meeting the path of liberation than those weighed down by heavier karma. Also, many Buddhists die afflicted beings to be reborn again too.

krodha wrote:
I'm still unsure where you are getting the idea that Christians are bound for any sort of higher rebirth as a result of their relationship with their faith. This does not make sense.

Vasana said:
'simply because' seems like a simplification of a complex set of phenomenon and circumstances. I think it's more interesting to notice the skilfull means of various Buddhists when dealing with the sensitive topic of other faiths. Maybe the Dalai Lama is teaching us something about skilfull means in his open arms approach to other faiths.

krodha wrote:
My son was raised without religion and exhibits healthy skepticism towards systems of belief, yet is kind and compassionate because he was shown that is the way to be, without religion.

I also have family members who are Christian. My daughter attends a Christian elementary school. I'm courteous and kind to any Christian I interact with and respect their relationship with their religion. My outward display does not reflect my personal feelings whatsoever, and if there are skillful means involved, that outward tolerance, patience and kindness is surely it. That is all that those such as the Dalai Lama are intending to communicate.

Inwardly, I really don't care for their religion and have many family members who feel the same way.

Vasana said:
And that's another point too- building interfaith solidarity and respect will probably help the world and it's inhabitants sooner than philosophical and theological debate.

krodha wrote:
Perhaps.

Yet it is also evident that Judeo-Christian values and tenets are at the root of the anthropocentric attitude that many human beings approach both other species and our planet with, to their detriment.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2018 at 1:43 PM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
emaho said:
Yeah, nevermind. A lot of people are suffering from serious allergies. I know what that's like, I'm allergic to pollen and dust.

krodha wrote:
As far as I can tell, Christians, Catholics, etc., worship some sort of asura, and they are welcome to do so, but look at the massive scale of bloodshed that has occurred as a result.

What redeeming aspects does Christianity have? Instilling a moral compass? If you need a god to threaten you with judgement and eternal damnation in order to be a decent human being, then you are not a decent human being.

If you are truly a decent human being then you are that way with or without Christianity, and in that case what does Christianity really offer? A sense of community? You can find that in any subculture.

Christians have no possibility to be liberated. They cling to a system of belief in this life, and die as afflicted sentient beings, to be reborn again.

I do not understand why people lend Christianity so much legitimacy, simply because massive amounts of people have adopted it and choose to adhere to its teachings.

But to each their own.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2018 at 10:43 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
ChNN must not have gotten the memo since, apparently, he considers Jesus to have been an enlightened being.

emaho said:
Neither has Chhimed Rigdzin Rinpoche. He once said during a teaching that Jesus was a high Bodhisattva and if he'd enter the room, he, CRR, would immediately step down from his throne and prostrate to Jesus.

Dorje Shedrub said:
HHDL has also called JC a bodhisattva.

krodha wrote:
They're just being kind.

Moreover, there is no evidence Jesus ever existed, and even if (i) he did exist, and (ii) his convoluted teaching that has been butchered over centuries has any merit, it still has no application in the context of the buddhadharma.

Those interested in seeing Jesus as some sort of bodhisattva in a legitimate sense are trying to reconcile cultural baggage with some sort of guilt.

But then again I feel Christianity has been a scourge in this world, and has most likely done more harm than good.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2018 at 8:33 AM
Title: Re: Trekchod/pointing out instructions
Content:
florin said:
You are asking sutra level questions (selflessness,illusion,ego, etc...) in a topic with a dzogchen title.

krodha wrote:
Selflessness, illusion, etc., are core Dzogchen principles.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 15th, 2018 at 7:47 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Spelare said:
Fine, but you never answered whether that understanding is in the tantras themselves, in self-commentaries presumably written around the same time or not long after, or in significantly later commentaries.  Later commentators would have a strong vested interest in tying up any apparent loose ends or ambiguities, and they would do so according to their scholastic monastic training.

krodha wrote:
Overall, what does it matter? Are you insinuating that you believe there is a case to be made for interpreting the use of "I" literally?

That the intention behind including said pronoun in these texts is solely meant to communicate that there is some sort of actual personification of the nature of mind, existing somewhere, that is giving teachings like some god?

That would be the consequence of such a position.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 15th, 2018 at 6:52 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Spelare said:
My point is precisely that Eckhart uses the first person singular pronoun "I" as a rhetorical device.  His sermons, while ostensibly to his audience, were also a way for him to give an exposition to himself; to clarify his realization.  He is personifying a recognition, something that was strange and new to his listeners.

krodha wrote:
His expositions appear to be no different than the Advaitan authors who used "I" as a means to indicate their transcendent nature, and the Advaitans are certainly not using said pronoun rhetorically. For them it is referencing something truly substantial that is endowed with an ontological status, there is no reason to assume Eckhart was not doing the same.

Spelare said:
When Eckhart had to defend himself at trial, he testified that he had been employing a literary device.  So, that's a non-difference.

krodha wrote:
Eckhart pivoted to his claimed "literary" position under duress, in order to literally save his own head.

The Dzogchen tantras on the other hand are understood to use the same language rhetorically and this information was voluntarily provided under no threat of beheading.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 15th, 2018 at 5:51 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Spelare said:
That quotation sounds totally arrogant and presumptuous if you read it as simply a delusional human being.  But if the "I" speaking there is the same "I" that in our own tradition's scriptures says "I am primordial self-originating wisdom.  I am the primordial source of all phenomena.  I am the all-creating king, pure perfect presence," what he has said is the opposite of arrogance or presumption.

krodha wrote:
There is no actual "I" in the Dzogchen teachings that says such things.

The style of prose which involves a first person perspective that is sometimes employed in the Dzogchen tantras is "direct," as opposed to the "indirect" style we find in the Śravāka suttas and Mahāyāna sūtras and śastras. Which means that instead of the text being a second hand report of an account, beginning with "thus I have heard, on one occasion...", it is styilized as a direct teaching or exposition from the personified dharmakāya. The retinue, rather than a group of aspirants and practitioners in the sūtras, is the nature of mind itself. The nature of mind is giving an exposition to itself, where the retinue is the form kāyas. Therefore we see the personified teacher using the first person singular pronoun "I", as a rhetorical device.

The Dzogchen tantras even go as far as to note what the pronoun "I" represents in the texts in question, and are clear it is a literary device. It isn't stating that there is some sort of transcendent self or "I", nor is it saying anything remotely similar to esoteric Christian teachings.

Spelare said:
Does he have to have fully realized and integrated that awakening in order for us to suspect he had a genuine glimpse?  Of course we won't find Buddhist words coming out of his mouth, because he was unacquainted with Buddhism.  However, if we take seriously the teaching that all sentient beings have buddha-nature . . . very possible.

krodha wrote:
There is no evidence these Christian mystics acquired insight or had experiences that were commensurate with the definitive species of realization championed in Dzogpachenpo.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 15th, 2018 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
Spelare said:
It depends on how you are measuring and for what.  Arguably, the greatest mystics of the Christian East and West have more in common with Dzogchen masters than they do with the Christian "fundamentalists" you use below as a strawman. Of those mystics, who are to be found among the Desert Fathers and later monastics as well as lay practitioners, the spiritual lineages of Evagrius Ponticus and Dionysius the Areopagite merit special attention.  They used what they had received from Jewish esoterism and Greek Neoplatonic philosophy, arriving at a new synthesis through ascetic praxis.

krodha wrote:
Although take Dionysius for example, his writings are replete with descriptions such as "the darkness," "unknowing," which was a staple of his teachings that his magnum opus was titled after, not to mention his affinity for the apophatic approach. None of this resembles Dzogchen or Buddhism in general in any way.

Spelare said:
Very broad brushstrokes.

krodha wrote:
Yet accurate.

Spelare said:
But when it is not manifestly dysfunctional, as it often can be, it gives a moral foundation analogous to the outer teachings of Buddhism.  With additional unnecessary baggage, arguably.  But I have heard respected lamas say that an ethical foundation and relative relief of suffering are not to be belittled, even when they are not ultimately liberating.

krodha wrote:
Perhaps, yet the intention behind the so-called moral foundations of each are worlds apart.

Spelare said:
Really?  Isn't that your own reading of what he was doing?  In my reading, certain masters in the Eastern and Western Christian worlds were using skillful means in their employment of established doctrine, theology, and ascetic practice to communicate a realization beyond the understanding of most Christians.  That is clearly what Evagrius, Eckhart, and Gregory Palamas were doing, to name only a few bright luminaries.

krodha wrote:
Any and all esoteric, shamanic, mystic, gnostic traditions explore so-called "altered states" of consciousness. This coarse observation does not mean esoteric Christianity and Dzogchen have anything in common apart from that.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 15th, 2018 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Advaita Vedanta is more refined than Christian Gnosticism, and even it is not commensurate with Dzogchen or Buddhist teachings in general.

The nonsense that Christianity has spun into this day in age is very far removed from its gnostic branches and is now little more than a platform to enslave the minds of the spiritually less fortunate.

When Norbu Rinpoche makes comparisons to Christianity he is using skillful means, as no one is becoming liberated through Christianity.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2018 at 10:10 AM
Title: Re: If the Mahayana Sutras were not spoken by the Buddha what authority do they hold?
Content:
krodha wrote:
In Mahāyāna the tathāgata is not considered to be name and form, therefore the word of the Buddha is not tied to the statements of any specific historical figure.

Fortyeightvows said:
Yes mahayana texts like the diamond sutra say this. We should add that mahayana texts also have plenty of verses saying how great they are. So how can we know that a text is great? Because the text itself says its great!

Since these teachings "not tied to the statements of any specific historical figure" then why do we have them set in places that the historical figure taught at? With an audience of other historical figures? etc.
I'd think one reason to do this would specifically be to 'tie them to the historical figure.

My only point is that often people will say things like 'mahayana accepts all the lower teachings', but if they looked at the pali texts, we find alot of things which contradict the mahayana teachings.

krodha wrote:
My point is that the authenticity or legitimacy of the Mahāyāna teachings does not hinge upon whether Buddha Śākyamuni taught them... whether he did or did not, it is all the same.

The Ārya-aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā sūtra states that the tathāgata is not to be viewed as name and form. Therefore the Buddha is not actually the historical figure Gautama Śākyamuni:

Those who are attached to the tathāgata as a form or a name are childish and have corrupted discerning wisdom… the tathāgatas are not to be seen as the rūpakāya; the tathāgatās are to be seen as the dharmakāya.

Then in Malcolm's current signature, in the quote from the Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra, the definition of buddhavacana or "the word of the Buddha" is provided in the context of the Mahāyāna:

[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

Viewing the Mahāyāna teachings in this way allows the question that this entire thread is based upon to dissipate and become a non-issue, which is nice.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2018 at 9:30 AM
Title: Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?
Content:
emaho said:
PS: I was going with the entry from the RY Wiki, the part that I've marked blue: alaya - all-ground. Literally, the 'foundation of all things.' The basis of mind and both pure and impure phenomena. This word has different meanings in different contexts and should be understood accordingly. Sometimes it is synonymous with buddha nature or dharmakaya, the recognition of which is the basis for all pure phenomena; other times, as in the case of the 'ignorant all-ground,' it refers to a neutral state of dualistic mind that has not been embraced by innate wakefulness and thus is the basis for samsaric experience [RY]
http://rywiki.tsadra.org/index.php/kun_gzhi

I wasn't aware that ChNN uses this term in the sense of the green part. Thanks for explaining.

krodha wrote:
The blue and green sections are part and parcel to one another. If there is a basis for pure and impure phenomena then is afflicted.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2018 at 7:05 AM
Title: Re: If the Mahayana Sutras were not spoken by the Buddha what authority do they hold?
Content:
krodha wrote:
In Mahāyāna the tathāgata is not considered to be name and form, therefore the word of the Buddha is not tied to the statements of any specific historical figure.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 10th, 2018 at 5:57 AM
Title: Re: Dialectical Monism / Emptiness
Content:
Wayfarer said:
...the expression:
ultimate truth is nothing more....
Does make me a bit uneasy because it seems reductionist.

krodha wrote:
Non-arising is non-reductive.

Wayfarer said:
Again, I think what we have to understand is that there is nothing to get. Yet we have to constantly strive to get it.

krodha wrote:
The nature of phenomena is something to recognize. That nature is always already the case, and so in that sense there is nothing to "get" in terms of acquiring something new. However, given that we do not possess a working knowledge of said nature, that knowledge must be acquired through awakening.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 9th, 2018 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: Energy healing, will it disrupt prana from Vajrayana/Dzogchen
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Will learning or receiving New Age type energy healings disrupt prana for Vajrayana/Dzogchen practice to your knowledge?

I remember Khandro Kunzang, Lama Dawa's consort and assistant, still does some New Age type healing, but forgot what it was exactly.

What about reiki or other "energy" type stuff?

krodha wrote:
Unless you're actively involved with practices that are intended to slow or still your karmavāyu I think you're ok.

And if you are involved with such practice, reiki and new age healing are the least of your worries, as any relative use of body, speech and mind is going to disturb your vāyu.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 9th, 2018 at 8:35 PM
Title: Re: Dialectical Monism / Emptiness
Content:
Sherab said:
When it is asserted that an ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth, it necessarily implies that there is only the conventional truth.

And it all went down into a logical rabbit hole when combined with the definition that "An ultimate truth is the veridical perception of a given entity, a relative truth is the non-veridical perception of a given entity" because it follows that the relative/conventional truth is now both veridical and non-veridical.

krodha wrote:
So-called ultimate truth is nothing more than an absence of arising and absence of characteristics that is intended to be recognized by afflicted sentient beings. Ultimate truth in name, and as a principle in itself, is equally conventional because said truth is nothing more than a solution to your current samsaric predicament.

Afflicted sentient beings posit an ultimate truth to be realized from the standpoint of their ignorance, which is again, only the non-arising of the figments of their own delusion. Tathāgatas likewise only posit an ultimate truth for the sake of afflicted sentient beings.

In the same vein, only afflicted sentient beings perceive tathāgatas. Tathāgatas do not perceive sentient beings or other tathāgatas, nor do they perceive or conceive of relative or ultimate truths. The two truths are a relative model employed to help you find a way out of your afflicted situation.

The misperception of conditioned phenomena manifests as a result of ignorance, and said misperception is undone with the cessation of ignorance. There is no other "ultimate truth" to recognize, and said ultimate nature is nothing more than the absence of arising and absence of characteristics in allegedly conditioned phenomena. Hence there is nothing to identify as "ultimate" beyond said absence, and when that non-arising is realized there is no more ultimate truth to be apprehended.

The Pitāputrasamāgamana Sūtra states:

Great king, the dharmadhātu cannot be explained apart from being just a name, just a symbol, just a convention [just relative], just an expression and just a designation.

And this goes for both truths, as the Mahāsiddha Virupa communicates:

The two truths don’t exist in the dharmadhātu, the dharmadhātu does not exist.

Therefore those who say the ultimate is unfindable, are also saying the relative is unfindable.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 9th, 2018 at 8:22 PM
Title: Re: Dialectical Monism / Emptiness
Content:
Sherab said:
Note also that "...it does not arise, does not cease..."  This implies that it simply is.

I think it is better to understand the ultimate as above then to say it is non-inherent.

krodha wrote:
This is because you have an Advaita Vedanta type view.

Sherab said:
Being simply is can imply non-inherence but non-inherence does not imply being simply is.

krodha wrote:
If something "simply is" it has arisen and has an ontological status.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 8th, 2018 at 3:30 PM
Title: Re: Dialectical Monism / Emptiness
Content:
Sherab said:
And there are Buddhists who assert that there is no implicate order (ultimate) and that there is only the explicate order (relative).  You will find on this board the voices with the most influence belong to the latter.  I think they are wrong though.

krodha wrote:
No one involved with this board asserts "the latter." The issue is that you personally harbor inaccurate views that prevent you from comprehending what the alleged "latter" are actually saying.

Which is why I said a gestalt shift is required in your own understanding, and until that occurs you will continually fail to grasp what is being said and will persist in your misrepresentation of the position you are objecting to.

Every single time you interact with "the latter," an impasse is reached and it becomes evident that there is no point in continuing the discussion. You're welcome to your opinion but you are deceiving yourself if you think you understand the actual view of those you are disagreeing with.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 4th, 2018 at 4:11 PM
Title: Re: Kyab Rig
Content:
Luca Vliolini said:
Hi khorda  my English is very primitive so I try to answer in a very coarse a simple way but if you understand  italian Ican give you a refined reply.
First of all  the discussion is about  alleged different  semantic opinion about khyabrig  rigpa between Lopon tenzin namdak and Tenzin Wangyal
but according  all the quotation that I did for both master khyabrig  rigpa is  all pervading  the whole existence.Lopon did a very clear definition
the put below
(All-)Encompassing Awareness means that all the Natural State called Buddha Nature which encompasses all sentient beings and whole of existence; therefore it is called (All-) Encompassing Awareness"
Namkha Truldzo 2-7 August 2005
second week page 33 (this book is edited by Shenten Dargye Ling)
I speak about semantic and this is very crucial point .Jla spoke   about a private talk with lopon tenzin namdak where Lopon gave a different  semantic interpretation but in public teaching Lopon Tenzin namdak  said just opposite.

(All-)Encompassing Awareness means that all the Natural State called Buddha Nature which encompasses all sentient beings and whole of existence; therefore it is called (All-) Encompassing Awareness"
So the first  and main premise   of Jean  Luc was contradicted  directly by lopon Tenzin namdak  in a public  teaching.

It is the main point because is about the  semantic
.In  a language we must make a clear distiction(There is a scientific work by Tarsky)between language and meta  language . Between syntaxex and semantics.
In Italin will make a long speech between difference Meta language and language but here is  beyond my English.But is a crucial an d important topic

Anyway Jean Luc is free to say that say  khyabrig  rigpa is   not all pervading  the whole existence and say that is an eretic position but he cannot say thathis opinion  is  the same opinion  of Lopon Tenzin namdak  because in a public teaching  Lopon Tenzin Namdak  2-7 August 2005 told  that (All-)Encompassing Awareness means that all the Natural State called Buddha Nature which encompasses all sentient beings and whole of existence; therefore it is called (All-) Encompassing Awareness.

krodha wrote:
Like I said, this issue is more nuanced than simply stating objects are or aren't the "natural state." Or that X species of rig pa does or does not pervade "existence."

To understand how rigpa "encompasses" or "pervades" so-called "existence" (I personally would not put it this way) one must first understand how the objects, persons, places, etc., that constitute existence come to manifest. This process is detailed in the teachings.

Jean-Luc is not contradicting Lopon Tenzin Namdak, he is merely clarifying the import of Lopon's statement, demonstrating how it can be misconstrued and why it is important not to misconstrue it that way.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 4th, 2018 at 12:42 PM
Title: Re: Kyab Rig
Content:


krodha wrote:
Overall if understood correctly is a non-controversial point, however if we fail to understand the nuances involved and mistakenly believe that (i) objects are endowed with rigpa, or (ii) that our perception of objects constitutes a cognition of the so-called "natural state," then we have erred and misunderstand the import of the statement.

These are the issues that Jean-Luc raised, and they are pertinent.

Johnny Dangerous said:
I have never seen anyone say rocks and trees have rigpa.

krodha wrote:
Apparently Jean-Luc encountered this view, to a degree that he felt it warranted multiple entries in his blog in order to clarify how and why it is misguided.

Luca's name was thrown out there by JLA, so he is associated somehow.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 4th, 2018 at 10:34 AM
Title: Re: Kyab Rig
Content:
krodha wrote:
It is difficult to decipher what the controversy is at this point.

Luca, you seem keen on reiterating that objects are "pervaded" and "encompassed" by rig pa... this is in some semblance true, but is also very coarse as a broad assertion and could use some further unpacking.

Overall if understood correctly is a non-controversial point, however if we fail to understand the nuances involved and mistakenly believe that (i) objects are endowed with rigpa, or (ii) that our perception of objects constitutes a cognition of the so-called "natural state," then we have erred and misunderstand the import of the statement.

These are the issues that Jean-Luc raised, and they are pertinent.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 4th, 2018 at 7:26 AM
Title: Re: Kyab Rig
Content:
Luca Vliolini said:
With pleasure .

Namkha Truldzo 2-7 August 2005
second week page 33 (this book is edited by Shenten Dargye Ling)

the definiton Kyab rig by Lopon Tenzin namdak
"1. (All-)Encompassing Awareness means that all the Natural State called Buddha Nature which encompasses all sentient beings and whole of existence; therefore it is called (All-) Encompassing Awareness"


Namkha Truldzo teaching 23 July -11 August 2006 page 39  (this book is edited by Shenten Dargye Ling)
By Lopon Tenzin Namdak
"All phenomena which exixts-internally externally -are all natural state ,so if everything is natural state then the question arise :Is the pillar the natural state or not?It has to be the natural state because we have already said ,we have made the premise ,that everything is the natural state .But it is not easy for us to accept that a pillar or a table is natural state"

krodha wrote:
The issue is that this specific topic is more nuanced than simply saying objects are or are not the "natural state."


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 3rd, 2018 at 5:05 AM
Title: Re: Kyab Rig
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
TWR: When we talk about wisdom or rigpa, they talk about three kinds of rigpa. One is pervasive innate awareness or pervasive space, which is everywhere - beyond your body, beyond your mind, in matter. You share that same space. You share that space with matter. You share that space with all other people, with every other consciousness. We are connected. Totally connected. No matter how far or close you are there are no differences.

krodha wrote:
This is certainly unconventional, especially given how the body and matter manifest.

dzogchungpa said:
Yah, is that a beauty or what?

krodha wrote:
It is a sloppy exposition.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 3rd, 2018 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: Kyab Rig
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
TWR: When we talk about wisdom or rigpa, they talk about three kinds of rigpa. One is pervasive innate awareness or pervasive space, which is everywhere - beyond your body, beyond your mind, in matter. You share that same space. You share that space with matter. You share that space with all other people, with every other consciousness. We are connected. Totally connected. No matter how far or close you are there are no differences.

krodha wrote:
This is certainly unconventional, especially given how the body and matter manifest.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 3rd, 2018 at 12:09 AM
Title: Re: Kyab Rig
Content:
Luca Vliolini said:
11 Year Ago I was Italy organizer Lopon Tenzin namdak Rinpoche retreats .I asked him about this isuue and he pointed me a book  transcripted   his Namkha truldzo teaching  and he told me to read that transcription . I read
l Namkha Truldzo 2-7 August  2005
seconda week  page 33 (this book is edited by Shenten Dargye Ling)

the definiton Kyab rig  by Lopon Tenzin namdak
"1. (All-)Encompassing Awareness means that all the Natural State called Buddha Nature which encompasses all sentient beings and whole of existence; therefore it is called (All-) Encompassing Awareness"
The same of Tenzin Wangyal definition.So I think that Tenzin Wangyal and Anne Klein are right about this issue .In the passage that i post by Anne klein there is a traslation of a writing about this issue by Lopon tenzin Namdak
"pervasive open awareness (khyab rig ) is the clarity  that pervades everything".Her translation  fit very well with transcription  of Shenten.So  I wonder where Twr is wrong

krodha wrote:
The controversy centers around the suggestion that rocks, etc., possess rig pa.

Khyab rig can encompass or pervade phenomenal appearances without said phenomena possessing rigpa.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2018 at 4:22 AM
Title: Re: Kyab Rig
Content:
Luca Vliolini said:
Hi there is man opinion between scholar about .The Bonpo master have their opinion I put a very important explanation by Tenzin Wangyal and about Anne Klein.
Here Tenzin Wangyal Explanation.1992-1993 Austria 21 Nails

there is a very important explanation of the Rigpa. It is also a very rare kind of explanation and is honoured because of its clear distinction. It explains that there are three kinds of Rigpa. Usually one question arises in the normal usage of explanation of the Rigpa. If the Rigpa is never distracted in its base or essence and it is like Buddhahood, does that mean that we don`t need to practise. If Rigpa is never distracted we shouldn`t need any practices to overcome our own distraction.
This first Rigpa is called khyabrig, with the meaning of all pervading awareness; in Tibetan kun khyab means all pervading, rig stands for Rigpa which is usually rendered as pure awareness. This rig, which is not awareness in our normal way of understanding as being aware of something, but awareness as nature or essence which is presence. This first Rigpa we are talking here is called khyabrig or whole pervading because it is everywhere. It is the base. It is primordially perfect. For example the sun in the sky, meaning there is light everywhere in the whole sky and at the same time there is the reflection of the sun in the water, the ocean; There is a light, this light in and on the water which reflects on the wall and on the wall there is again sunlight from the top. This different forms of sunlight have differnt qualities like a very heat quality, one has a very wet quality, one is a dry quality but still all have the quality of sunlight in that specific quality. This means this first Rigpa is everywhere, in each base, therefore kunkhyab (kun khyab) - all pervading or pervading the whole existence.
The second kind of awareness is called samrig (bsam rig), which means consciousness-awareness. This consciousness awareness is very important because it is this where we usually have problems. Problem in the sense that we have usually understanding and non-understanding. All our questions which arise from this consciousness-awareness. When we do not understand and when we are distracted we go to the master and try to receive teachings. Then we try to practise and when we manage to practise in the right way we come to an understanding. Sometimes we are distracted, sometimes not. These changes of awareness is called samrig or consciousness-awareness. Before we explained the external vision, we said that there are no limitations. Everything is possible. In the same way as the visions are not limited our awareness is omnipervasive. Our awareness has no limitations. It can perceive everything in an equal taste. The problem is just our consciousness which is our conceptual consciousness. It comes as the dualistic mind and it is at that point that we don`t understand anymore the things which are actually quite simple. This mind blocks ourselves to understand. When it does not arise we understand things how they are. This is the function of the consciousness-awareness. It is different from the first awareness which is always present. Before, in the teaching there was this explanation to just leave it in that omnipervasiveness, this awareness pervading everything. It is the potential or possibility of all visions. To leave it there means don`t move the other consciousness-awareness, which is grasping. Then, there is the third one which is called yerig or primordial-awareness. This is more connected with the second one, the conciousness-awareness. There is always the unification of the Rigpa as a consciousness-awareness with the vision. It is not seperate. It is pure. It has the quality that there is always presence in the vision, therefore it is called primordial. Even if it were to be distracted it is not really distracted. There is this consciousness on this awareness which is always there and this is called primordial. It is the one which always stays in presence, and with this presence I integrate all my visions. That means that through my consciousness I actually remove my distractions and integrate everything with this consciousness-awareness samrig. The base, which is one for all things, is already there all the time, uninterupted is called the primordial awareness or yerig.hese three kinds of Rigpa are explainded here  and I find them very important because when we usually talk of Rigpa we do not distinguish. In a sense we always talk of Rigpa as being pure, perfect and then what happens is that we constantly find ourselves ignorant. We are just confused all the time. It is important to understand why we are confused when Rigpa is perfect. Our own Rigpa is perfect and at the same time we are confused. That is because our primordial awareness is spontaneously perfect from primordial time. And because of that awareness (ye rig) we have the possibility to develop the consciousness-awareness (bsam rig). It is like if we shake milk, if there is not the possibiliy to become butter we could shake endlessly it would never become butter. In the same way as we have that quality of awareness (ye rig) we can develop our consciousness-awareness (bsam rig). That is important to understand.
In the same way the primordial awareness or yerig is always there and through our consciousness-awareness or samrig which is sometimes distracted ond sometimes present we can arrive in that primordial presence. Whereas the whole pervading awareness or khyabrig, which pervades all existence is always there. It is the nature of existence. This is called awareness or Rigpa because everything has one fundamental quality or nature. For example a flower has this all-pervading awareness or khyabrig but a flower has no consciousness-awareness (bsam rig) and therefore no primordial awareness (ye rig). This allpervading awareness is not an awareness in our normal way of thinking and understanding awareness or consciousness, therefore we use Rigpa and not consciousness. But when we talk of kunzhi as the base of everything and it would not exist in some way in the flower then it would not be the base of everything. And it is not only the base of the flower but of every existence. This quality is the absolute reality of all existence. It is not only the reality of us human beings.
But then you might ask, if it is in everything why is there only for us human beings the possibility for realization? Why can`t a flower realize the nature of mind? It is because the flower has no consciousness-awareness, only all-pervading awareness. For example the sun shines in the sky and does reflect everywhere but not in a piece of coal. It reflects in the crystal because a crystal has the potentiality and quality to reflect and the coal has no potential quality to reflect. That does not mean the sun does not shine everywhere.
Another way of understanding is when we talk usually that everything you perceive outside is like a dream. You should always remember these things which are already explained to you; otherwise it does not make any sense to explain it. We can also say that this flower is like a dream It does not exist in the way as we are perceiving this flower. There is something, but it could also be a stone. What we see there could be a flower but also a stone and if it is something what we perceive we call it flower. Then if we go and analyze this flower on what we think or expect to be a flower and take out the parts of the flower like the petals one by one, we do not find something concrete which is the real flower. What we think the flower is we do not find anywhere if we search for it. This is a very conceptual way of looking at things and we don`t do that type of analyzing things. It is important to understand that in Dzogchen it is not important at all to analyze, but sometimes as we need to discuss we can also use this way of explaining. It is important to understand that if you really want to know what the flower is and you analyze that flower part by part, you take out petal by petal and so on. You don`t find a part which is the base of the flower. In each part of it we try to find the flower and we don`t find the flower at all. Then when you understand that there doesn`t exist something concrete called flower, that is called the base. Still there is something called the flower and that is allpervading awareness. It is important to discover this subtle existence. That is called clarity (gsal ba). Normally we do not discover this subtle existence or all-pervading awareness but we see only our flower. Likewise in the Sutra (mdo) it talks a lot about emptiness, Shunyata or tongpanyi (stong pa nyid). In the Sutra it is said to prove that something does not exist is easy. It is easy to prove that there doesn`t exist something concrete like our flower, but to prove or to show you that there is something that exists is very difficult!
Sometimes you might think it is not important to teach in this way and you think you want to have direct introduction and direct experience. And it might be that you even have this direct understanding, but still you are in a dualistic condition. Therefore it is important to clarify yourself and your understanding with such a teaching

krodha wrote:
Aren't you one of the individuals Jean-Luc was addressing about this issue?

JLA said that while Tenzin's contributions to these teachings are no doubt noteworthy, he was mistaken about this specific principle [khyab rig] when he wrote this text, for whatever reason.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 26th, 2018 at 3:45 PM
Title: Re: Illusion in Dzogchen
Content:
Kunga Lhadzom said:
If EVERYTHING comes from ONE thing, How can there be anything separate? ...everything in the Universe came from the same source.

krodha wrote:
This is not actually a view supported by Dzogchen, or Buddhism in general.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 25th, 2018 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Illusion in Dzogchen
Content:


kalden yungdrung said:
Krodha wrote:

Something "real" would be substantial in nature, meaning truly established as a concrete entity.

Illusions appear but are not established or substantial entities, therefore they are not "real."

Nothing is held to be real in the view of Dzogchen.
===================

Real was meant here as an answer to something which we also can left aside then we get
Nature is the ultimate , maybe better said.

Guess illusions are inherent connected to Nature but are empty (in Nature)
So Nature has some "real" characteristics.

The view of Dzogchen has sure "real" views and some wrong ones like:

Now, while you are meditating, if you think something and
focus to the object side, then that is Thagpar Tawa, Eternalism.
---------
If you think that the mind and Nature do not exist, then that is
Cheta, the View of Nihilism.
---------
If you just focus and think whether something exists or
something doesn't exist, then that is Lungma Tenpa, Neutral View
where there are neither virtues nor negativities.
---------
If you use mantras or think when you are meditating, then that
is Zulum, your own view - it is not according to Dzogchen.

In "real" Nature, there is no focusing nor does it use consciousness or speech.
Here you can see, we use again the word "real".


There are more wrong views possible for a Dzogchenpa.

krodha wrote:
The term "real" can be used in many contexts, but referring to your nature as your "real nature" is just a way of communicating that your nature is the actual condition of your mind that you are meant to recognize.

"Real nature" in that context does not mean your nature is substantial or established.

This is a semantic issue.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 25th, 2018 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: Illusion in Dzogchen
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Illusion is the ultimately real.

kalden yungdrung said:
Maybe Nature is the ultimate real?

krodha wrote:
Something "real" would be substantial in nature, meaning truly established as a concrete entity.

Illusions appear but are not established or substantial entities, therefore they are not "real."

Nothing is held to be real in the view of Dzogchen.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 25th, 2018 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: Illusion in Dzogchen
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Illusion is the ultimately real.

krodha wrote:
"Ultimately real" and illusion are the antithesis of one another.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 15th, 2018 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: US and Allies Launch Strikes on Syria
Content:
krodha wrote:
There's also this point of interest for European countries involved:

http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/is-the-fight-over-a-gas-pipeline-fuelling-the-worlds-bloodiest-conflict/news-story/74efcba9554c10bd35e280b63a9afb74


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 5th, 2018 at 5:02 AM
Title: Re: Great Transference question
Content:
krodha wrote:
Also, disappearance of the body does not necessarily indicate the body of light, this was discussed on here before some time ago.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 4th, 2018 at 9:28 AM
Title: Re: Great Transference question
Content:
Josef said:
Yes, the Longsal Thogal and Longsal Yangti books are restricted to students who attended those retreats in person.

krodha wrote:
The Longsal Thogal was published?

Rinpoche said it was in the works at the retreat and then I never heard anything after that.

Josef said:
I don't know if it's available.

krodha wrote:
Thanks, the only update I found was this:

ROOT TEXT AND COMMENTARY OF LONGSAL THODGAL

This book contains the teaching that Chögyal Namkhai Norbu transmitted in its complete form in Tenerife, 2011.

The text has been translated and Adriano also worked with Rinpoche a few weeks ago in May 2016 in Tenerife. Now Adriano needs to recheck it and edit in its final form, before being edited and published, hopefully by the end of this year.

From here:

http://melong.com/translation-projects-update/

There are some other great projects on the way as well.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 4th, 2018 at 7:00 AM
Title: Re: Great Transference question
Content:
Josef said:
Yes, the Longsal Thogal and Longsal Yangti books are restricted to students who attended those retreats in person.

krodha wrote:
The Longsal Thogal was published?

Rinpoche said it was in the works at the retreat and then I never heard anything after that.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 4th, 2018 at 3:09 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Andrew David Boyle said:
I don't think there is any difference.

krodha wrote:
There is a monumental difference.

For one, the Dzogchen tantras reject the Advaita view by name and also explicitly reject the view of non-duality that Advaita Vedanta promulgates. The view of Advaita also breaks a Dzogchen samaya.

There's no room for interpretation on this one, and the Dzogchen corpus made sure of that.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 3rd, 2018 at 4:52 AM
Title: Re: melong pendant
Content:
Lukeinaz said:
Now where do I find some good cord to attach it?

krodha wrote:
I use two cords, in case one fails.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, April 2nd, 2018 at 2:16 PM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Sherab said:
You hold the view that there is only cognition that is conventional, i.e. cognition that goes through a sense media. I hold that there is cognition which goes through an intermediary and a cognition which does not.  This is a point of disagreement.

krodha wrote:
The issue is that you are conflating contexts. In the overarching picture the two truths are a conventional dichotomy, meaning at the end of the day the two truths are merely a pedagogical tool that is implemented to allow the aspirant to comprehend the nature of the predicament the buddhadharma aims to resolve. The model does not survive in the end, and therefore it is only conventional in nature.

Then within the more specific context of two truth model itself, we treat saṃvṛtisatya or "conventional truth" as fallacious and pāramārthasatya or "ultimate truth" as valid or "veridical." Yet ultimate truth is only veridical in that it is a working knowledge of a lack of validity in so-called conventional truth. It is not "veridical" in the sense that it is a legitimate nature that stands apart from what is termed "conventional" within the scope of the two truths, as you seem to be suggesting.

An ultimate truth is only taught because there is something to be understood about the nature of phenomena that is not currently known. One's current knowledge of phenomena is afflicted by ignorance, giving rise to the inaccurate conviction that there are entities, structures and processes that are truly real and established. The intermediary you bring up is precisely one of those structures. Meaning "sense media" is a false appearance, and because it is a fallacious appearance there is not actually a species of cognition that functions through an intermediary and a species of cognition that functions independently of said intermediary. Rather, there is simply the very same noetic capacity that is either (i) plagued by ignorance or (ii) free from ignorance, and the appearance of an intermediary, in this case sense media, manifests or subsides accordingly as a result of said cause.

Sherab said:
Veridical means truthful or veracious.  By definition something that is non-veridical cannot be relied upon for the truth.  So if you accept Malcolm's definition of conventional truth as a non-veridical cognition of an entity, then you also have to accept that conventional truth is not truthful and therefore cannot be relied upon for truth.

krodha wrote:
What "truth" do you think there is apart from the absence of origination in allegedly conditioned entities?

If the so-called "truth" in question is merely a lack of validity in relation to purported entities that are in actuality misconceptions that were never established in the first place, how is that lack of establishment itself a truly established or substantial truth?

The "truth" you are intended to recognize is that conventional entities are "non-veridical."

This is what is meant in texts which state the dharmadhātu is a mere name, and not truly existent. Or that nirvana does not actually exist, or that upon exhausting dharmas, dharmatā is also exhausted, etc.

Regarding recognition, the entire process of liberation from beginning to end is conventional in nature. Within that overarching conventional scope we define impure and pure cognitions as "conventional" and "ultimate," however this dichotomy is again, merely conventional. Thus we can say recognition occurs, and jñāna, the modality of cognition that manifests during instances of equipoise, is a "veridical" species of consciousness because it apprehends the dharmatā of mind and/or phenomena, but this does not mean jñāna is something ultimately established that stands apart from so-called conventional phenomena. Likewise, other so-called "veridical" attributes of the path, such as prajñā, dharmadhātu, dharmakāya, etc., are also merely conventions, despite their roles as definitive principles that are related to so-called ultimate truth.

All entities and processes are illusory and ultimately without substance. Occurrences like the recognition of dharmatā appear and have soteriological implications and value, but are ultimately essenceless appearances like anything else.

Sherab said:
This is another point of disagreement.  For me, non-duality refers to no distinction of "self" and "other".  Hence, dualistic cognition always involve a subject and an object.  In non-dualistic cognition, there is no distinction of subject and object.

krodha wrote:
Freedom from the dual extremes of existence and non-existence means no subject or objects can be found.

Therefore, whereas your interpretation views a lack of duality as a fusion of subject and object which creates a reductive and substantial ultimate nature that is "non-dual," the view I am communicating demonstrates that subjects and objects cannot be found when sought to begin with. Because subject and object are recognized to have never arisen in the first place, the treatment I am championing contrasts your own in that it promotes a non-reductive and insubstantial non-dual nature as a lack of essence. The difference between these two views is subtle but important, and contrasting interpretations like this is what sets the buddhadharma apart from substantialist tirthika dharmas.

In any case, it seems you believe there is actually some sort of established or substantial ultimate nature, and this error in view causes you to perceive various substance dualities.

A gestalt shift is in order...

When the [ultimate] truth is explained as it is, the conventional is not obstructed; Independent of the conventional, no [ultimate] truth can be found.
-- Bodhicittavivarana


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 31st, 2018 at 8:33 AM
Title: Re: "Wild Wild Country" - Osho documentary on Netflix
Content:
krodha wrote:
Just wait, it gets more insane by the episode. Unethical behavior disguised as spirituality all around.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2018 at 4:27 AM
Title: Re: ‘Dharmas do not arise’
Content:
krodha wrote:
From Buddhapālita, per Malcolm:

Here, with respect to your claim for an ascertained cause for the production of a result, wheat, etc., and a non-productive condition and non-condition, ‘the arising of a result is not accepted’ was previously explained.   If that result does not exist, where will ‘these are not conditions, these are conditions’ be accepted? If both of those come to be from depending on a result, also that result is does not exist. Because the result does not exist, where will there be a non-condition or a condition? If that is so, still results are not accepted, and even conditions and a non-conditions are non-existent. Because results, conditions, and non-conditions do not exist, descriptions for arising are merely conventional.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2018 at 7:54 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Sherab said:
The basic problem is this:  when recognition is convention, it is non-veridical.

krodha wrote:
Recognition is a conventional occurrence. What are we ideally recognizing? The dharmatā of phenomena, which is their non-arising. We present that non-arising as the ultimate truth of the given dharma in question, but even that ultimate truth is in the end, a convention.

Sherab said:
If it is non-veridical, it cannot be relied upon

krodha wrote:
Sure it can, and in fact the very definition of a correct convention [tathyasaṃvṛti] is that it can be relied upon to function consistently with the caveat that in order to be acceptable, it must be unable to withstand ultimate analysis.

Sherab said:
for what is the real truth but only what is conventionally accepted as truth.

krodha wrote:
The real truth is that any and all processes and entities perceived from the standpoint of ignorance cannot withstand scrutiny. Therefore what is conventionally accepted as true is essentially all that you have, and not even it is true.

Sherab said:
In other words, there can be no certainty that a conventional truth is really true.

krodha wrote:
No conventional truths are "really true."

Sherab said:
To put it in another way, if conventional truth is all there is, then all there is is non-veridical.

krodha wrote:
Precisely, and recognizing this, experientially, is a cognition of ultimate truth.

Sherab said:
If there is a real truth, it cannot be reached.

krodha wrote:
The real truth is reached via a failure to locate the entities and processes inferred by imputation and perceived through the veil of afflicted cognition.

Sherab said:
If there is no real truth, that is fine.  But you cannot rely on conventional truth to tell you that.

krodha wrote:
You have no other choice.

Sherab said:
All dualistic cognitions are cognition of conventional truths.  Ultimate truth is cognized non-dualistically.

krodha wrote:
Ultimate truth is a cognition of non-arising. It is "non-dual" because the purported entities that are known to be non-arisen are free from the dual extremes of existence and non-existence.

They are free from existence because to exist an entity must first arise. They are free from non-existence because for an entity to cease to exist it must first exist.

Therefore in cognizing ultimate truth we come to know that appearances are non-dual.

Sherab said:
Therefore there is a distinction between what is conventional and what is ultimate and there is a distinction between what is conventional truth and what is ultimate truth.

krodha wrote:
Sure, conventionally.

Sherab said:
In this regard, "epistemic" is not an adequate adjective for the ultimate if it makes no distinction between dualistic and non-dualistic cognitions.

krodha wrote:
Epistemic is perfectly adequate, as it is through knowledge that we apprehend the actual way of things. We can also make an argument for phenomenology, but never ontology in the context of the buddhadharma because the ultimate truth of phenomena is that they lack an ontological status.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, March 26th, 2018 at 9:27 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
krodha wrote:
An ontological non-duality [sanatanadharma] is where everything is reduced to a single substance that exists alone by itself. For example if subject and object were merged and we then held a view that the union of the two as a single X is truly substantial and valid.

Sherab said:
This cannot be true as it implies that once an individual is enlightened, all will be enlightened immediately thereafter.

krodha wrote:
That is one implication, yes. But since this is a tirthika position and has nothing to do with the buddhadharma it does not really matter.
On the other hand, an epistemological non-duality [buddhadharma] is simply a recognition that the nature of phenomena is free from the dual extremes of existence and non-existence, hence "non-dual". This is a non-reductive non-duality because it does not leave anything in its wake, there is no X left over once the nature of phenomena is recognized.

Sherab said:
This too is problematic because if the recognition is dualistic,

krodha wrote:
The recognition is conventional, therefore diversity and dualities are acceptable. For instance, a conventional subject recognizing a conventional object.

Constructs of that nature are acceptable because we know that conventions are merely nominal inferences that cannot withstand keen scrutiny nor bear ultimate analysis. We only implement said conventions for purposes of communication, knowing full well they do not reference substantial entities or processes.

Sherab said:
it is not amenable to any explanation of how external phenomena arise and yet do not arise in reality.

krodha wrote:
The misconception of arising is an error in cognition that manifests as a direct result of ignorance regarding the way things really are.

Sherab said:
If the recognition is non-dualistic and individual

krodha wrote:
Recognitions are always individual.

Sherab said:
then it implies an ontology which can only be described as neither one nor many.

krodha wrote:
The principle of "neither one nor many" is illustrated in the above entry which discusses fires and heat.

Heat is not one because it is found wherever fire occurs, yet it is not many because heat is identical in expression wherever it is found.

Sherab said:
In this case, the word "epistemological" is an inadequate adjective for that ontology.

krodha wrote:
"Epistemic" is referencing knowledge. The cause of the misconception of conditioned entities and processes is the result of a knowledge obscuration and is overturned through knowledge [vidyā] of the actual nature of mind and phenomena.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 25th, 2018 at 6:09 PM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
ItsRaining said:
Huayan says the same of phenomena/dharmas as they arise only in the mind so they are all of the same nature. Being identical in nature is why it is said the "one"  (nature) is the same as the "all" (phenomena). But like you said the nature or the one isn't a Vedatin notion of a single monolithic and established entity. It's the nature of the mind.

krodha wrote:
The one nature is emptiness, which means dharmas do not arise at all.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 25th, 2018 at 2:09 PM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
krodha wrote:
The crypto-Vedanta view of "one mind" is treating the "singular" aspect of the principle as an entity rather than a quality or characteristic.

"One mind" does not mean there is "one" singular, transpersonal mind. "One" in this context means "same" in the sense that the nature of mind as non-arisen and luminous [aka pure or stainless] is a generic characteristic that all minds share.

In the same sense that all instances of fire share the common and generic characteristic of heat, or all instances of water share the common, generic characteristic of wetness. But all fires do not share the same, transpersonal expression of heat, like a singular field or entity of heat that all fires arise from. The same goes for the nature of mind: all minds share the common generic characteristic of being empty and luminous, but all minds do not share a single, transpersonal nature.

The principle of the Thig le nyag gcig in Dzogchen is the same way, often misconstrued by those with crypto-Vedantin biases as promoting a singular ultimate nature or oneness, but this is not the case.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 25th, 2018 at 2:01 PM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Ogyen said:
And what are the implications of the quasi-Vedanta usage?

Wayfarer said:
There is a Buddhist term for non-dual, which is ‘advaya’. It is similar, but different, to the Hindu ‘advaita’. They’re different forms of non-dualism. And in this thread I think the distinction is being blurred. https://www.google.com.au/search?q=advaita+advaya&rlz=1C9BKJA_enAU721AU730&oq=advaita+and+advaya&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l2.6840j0j7&hl=en-GB&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 on the distinction between ‘Buddhist Advaya’ and ‘Hindu Advaita’. They’re pretty academic, but then it’s a pretty academic question. (Actually the fourth ref is from DharmaWheel!)

krodha wrote:
T.R.V. Murti's Advayavada is the first hit on that search, I don't find his exposition to be all that clear.

I wrote this some time ago which goes over the difference:

Non-duality in Hinduism and sanatanadharma in general is a view that promulgates an ontological, transpersonal, homogenous, unconditioned existent. Which means that non-duality in the sanatanadharma is a substantial and reductive non-duality.

Whereas one's (ultimate) nature in the buddhadharma is epistemic, personal, heterogeneous and free from the extremes of existence and non-existence. This means that one's so-called "non-dual" nature in Buddhism is an insubstantial and non-reductive non-duality.

An ontological non-duality [sanatanadharma] is where everything is reduced to a single substance that exists alone by itself. For example if subject and object were merged and we then held a view that the union of the two as a single X is truly substantial and valid.

On the other hand, an epistemological non-duality [buddhadharma] is simply a recognition that the nature of phenomena is free from the dual extremes of existence and non-existence, hence "non-dual". This is a non-reductive non-duality because it does not leave anything in its wake, there is no X left over once the nature of phenomena is recognized.

In epistemic non-duality the nature of a conditioned phenomenon [dharma] and its non-arisen nature [dharmatā] are ultimately neither the same nor different, hence they are "non-dual", because the misconception of a conditioned entity is a byproduct of ignorance, and therefore said entity has never truly come into existence in the first place. This means that the allegedly conditioned entity has truly been unconditioned from the very beginning. And to realize this fact only requires a cessation of cause for the arising of the misconception of a conditioned entity, i.e., a cessation of ignorance. If dharmins and dharmatā were not non-dual then it would be impossible to recognize the unborn nature of phenomena because that nature would be rendered another conditioned entity.

Malcolm also wrote:
Once again, here Advaita and Buddhadharma are absolutely incommensurate, and as I pointed out, it is only Hindus who imagine that Advaita and Buddhadharma are talking about the same thing, i.e., knowledge of Brahman.

The only resemblance between Advaita and Buddhadharma is that we both seek to solve the same problem — avidyā. What we understand vidyā to be is completely different.

First of all, the way the term ["non-dual"] is used in Buddhadharma and Advaita are very different.

For example, the Tarkajvakla, a famous commentary on Nagarjuna 's MMK states:

Therefore, that which is the inner earth element, that is is the external earth element, that is the meaning of nondual.

Or:

When that yogin dwells in the experience of nonconceptual discerning wisdom [prajñā] and experiences nonduality, at that time, ultimately, the entire reality of objects of knowledge are as follows, of the same characteristics, like space, appearing in the manner of a nonappearance since their characteristics are nonexistent, therefore, there isn't even the slightest thing that is not empty, so where could there be emptiness? Since there are no mental discriminations, there is no conceptual clinging of mutual dependence.

Or the Kaumudī, a famous Buddhist tantric commentary, states:

Because of the absence of inherent existence, the nondual essence of all phenomena is emptiness.

It also is understood, as Dzogchungpa point outed, as a consciousness devoid of subject and object, as the Ḍākinīvajrapañjara[-mahā]tantrarājasya pañjikā[-prathamapaṭala-]mukhabandha-nāma:

One is a nondual consciousness. Two is an apprehending subject and an apprehended object.
These quotes are not exhaustive, but they show that "nondual" in Buddhadharma is really quite different than Advaita.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 25th, 2018 at 6:24 AM
Title: Re: Why is "unborn, unchanging, deathless" NOT eternal?
Content:



ItsRaining said:
You seem to be just assuming that it is intended to be controversial and incendiary when it is not. There was no massive controversy over these work in the past.... It just affirms that affirms that the mind noes not lack qualities which is an important point, clarifying that it is not an nihilists emptiness. It does not require unpacking if it is read in context within texts that mention it like the Awakening of Faith that make the point of saying the mind (and other things) is empty and can't be grasped at. It is not just "upaya" though every teaching is upaya in a sense.

krodha wrote:
The author could have just as easily said "not lacking qualities" or "not deprived of qualities" etc., however they chose to parse it as "not empty," which is clearly intentional rhetoric that is made to appear contradictory on purpose.

ItsRaining said:
Clearly rhetorical? Why has no one taken it as so then in its day? It’s just like the Srinagar Sutra which teaches the non-empty tathagatagarbha that’s not lacking qualities. And in its context it is clearly non-contradictory.

krodha wrote:
Clearly intentional. Not rhetorical.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 25th, 2018 at 5:40 AM
Title: Re: Why is "unborn, unchanging, deathless" NOT eternal?
Content:
Simon E. said:
Could someone remind me which Sanskrit or Pali or Tibetan term is being rendered as 'eternal'?

krodha wrote:
Nitya is the Sanskrit term.

smcj said:
Does that mean we’re all “Nitya picking”?

krodha wrote:
You joke but confusion around terminology is one way wrong views are formed.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 25th, 2018 at 5:19 AM
Title: Re: Why is "unborn, unchanging, deathless" NOT eternal?
Content:
Simon E. said:
Could someone remind me which Sanskrit or Pali or Tibetan term is being rendered as 'eternal'?

krodha wrote:
Nitya is the Sanskrit term.

Anitya is impermanence, therefore sans "a" it is just nitya, as permanence.

Translating it as eternal is shoddy work, but such is the nature of translation, which cannot be expected to be perfect. Especially in earlier decades.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 24th, 2018 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: Why is "unborn, unchanging, deathless" NOT eternal?
Content:
krodha wrote:
"Non-empty" is a play on words in that context. Many see the use of "non-empty" and think it contradicts śūnyatā, but it does not... it is merely a play on words that is intended to come off a bit controversial and incendiary. "Non-empty" is an embellished and shortened way of saying "not lacking qualities," but it appears attractive for those who might fear emptiness, it is intended as an upāya in that sense. The main issue is that it requires unpacking and given the fact that many who shy away from emptiness tend to be those who take comfort in the idea of substantial essences, the use of "non-empty" is oft misconstrued as affirming an inherent essence that contradicts emptiness.

ItsRaining said:
You seem to be just assuming that it is intended to be controversial and incendiary when it is not. There was no massive controversy over these work in the past.... It just affirms that affirms that the mind noes not lack qualities which is an important point, clarifying that it is not an nihilists emptiness. It does not require unpacking if it is read in context within texts that mention it like the Awakening of Faith that make the point of saying the mind (and other things) is empty and can't be grasped at. It is not just "upaya" though every teaching is upaya in a sense.

krodha wrote:
The author could have just as easily said "not lacking qualities" or "not deprived of qualities" etc., however they chose to parse it as "not empty," which is clearly intentional rhetoric that is made to appear contradictory on purpose.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 24th, 2018 at 3:49 PM
Title: Re: Why is "unborn, unchanging, deathless" NOT eternal?
Content:
smcj said:
I am finding references to "True Self" in the Mahaparanirvana, between several translations, there was one that was different, the rest corroborated each other. But then there is no "True Self" (i.e. buddhanature??)
Here's a quick explanation of the idea by Thrangu R. in the context of a short commentary on the Uttartantra.

Thrangu R. said:
Because sentient beings harbor the notion of a self, an ego, the Buddha gave teachings on the lack of a self-entity. Nonetheless, since the ego has never had any true existence to start with, in reality, how can something called 'egolessness' have any true existence? The second quality, perfect identity, refers not only to the total pacification of one's artificial mental fabrication of a 'self', but also to the pacification of one's intellectual concepts about egolessness--that of individuals and that of things. This complete pacification reveals one's true identity. Mental constructs of self and non-self are completely absent in both the enlightened essence and at the time of realizing the dharmakaya. Therefore, when conceptualizations about self and non-self are totally pacified the true identity is unveiled.


smcj said:
This quote is on p.61 of T.R.'s book, but in the context of the Uttaratantra itself it is in regards to:

A. 4th Vajra Point (chapter): "Buddha Nature". which has 10 points of explanation. Point #3 is called "Fruition", which is broken down into:
a. Perfect purity
b. Perfect identity
c. Perfect bliss
d. Perfect Permenance

So the above quote was in regards to "b. Perfect identity".

I've got another book with commentary by J. Kongtrul if you want another expert opinion on it.

krodha wrote:
Which is what I just pointed out. Ātman is a literary device that denotes one's nature. Not an actual identity.

It is perfectly okay to refer to dharmakāya or jñāna as a "perfect" or "true" identity if you are not deceived by the nature of identity and know the actual way of things. As Asaṅga says in his commentary of the Uttaratantra:

The Tathāgata, on the other hand, has attained the supreme perfection of the selflessness of all phenomena through the wisdom that is in accord with just how things truly are, and though there is no self according to how he sees things, he asserts a self all the time because he is never deceived by the characteristic of a self that does not exist. Making the selfless into a self is like saying "abiding through the mode of nonabiding."

However for those who are deceived by ignorance and are prone to essentialist and substantialist views, this verbiage has the potential to cause deviations into eternalism.

There are both provisional and definitive interpretations of the uttaratantra, the former leads to non-Buddhist misinterpretations of the text, the latter treats the rhetoric to be interpreted as creative subversion that is intended to represent Buddhist concepts which do not deviate from the standard presentation of the core tenets and principles we find elsewhere.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 24th, 2018 at 1:24 PM
Title: Re: Why is "unborn, unchanging, deathless" NOT eternal?
Content:
aryasunyata said:
But it still doesn't address the elephant in my living room.  If primordial awareness simply is... Then why is it "contradictory" to refer to as such when it is done in many a scriptural guide, sutras, tantras, etc... And... With many terms in many languages!!

krodha wrote:
No Buddhist teaching states that "primordial awareness" (what term that is a gloss for I'm not sure) "just is." This is never taught.

Ogyen said:
This is a reference to a conventional use of this term as is used among folks conversing about the subject...  in Dzogchen there are plenty of teaching about the primordial state, original mind, etc... unless I've grossly missed something and been hallucinating this whole time...?

krodha wrote:
I just meant I wasn't sure what term "primordial awareness" is intended to translate. It really is not a good gloss for terms like ye shes or rig pa, etc.

aryasunyata said:
My question isn't asking the meaning of life... My question is about Buddhists who contradict themselves and their own sources, and pretend there is no contradiction... It's incongruous to me.

krodha wrote:
You'll have to cite examples of said contradictions.

Ogyen said:
Sorry for delay been meaning to get to this, getting stuff ready in between kids work etc... so here goes.. I was going through the Ratnagotravibhaga on a site that has versions in Tibetan, Chinese and Sanskrit – sources at the bottom of text.  I have many other sutras and examples for this same kind of language, which my Mahayanist friends take as authority and my Dzogchen friends as secondary.... regardless I'm not interested in dissecting minutiae around esoteric interpretations of plain language clearly illustrated in the following examples... What I'm interested is coherence and why there so much negation/denial around "eternal" references on these boards, when the language appears over and over and over... so this is just the latest I was getting familiar with.  The terms are USED, in multiple sutras, in multiple languages.  I can also use google-translate-fu for Chinese terms.

krodha wrote:
I'm sure "eternal" is used in some translations, however whether it is an accurate gloss is another question.

Ogyen said:
I am finding references to "True Self" in the Mahaparanirvana, between several translations, there was one that was different, the rest corroborated each other. But then there is no "True Self" (i.e. buddhanature??)

krodha wrote:
The term "true self" is a gloss that some translators took liberty with, but the text never says true self [satyātman] it simply says ātman.

Tathāgatagarbha texts like the Mahāyāna-mahaparinirvana-sūtra  employ ātman as a subversive literary device in the context of the upāya known as the four pāramitās. Which means ātman is simply a play on words to describe the latent potential for buddhahood that all beings possess... not an actual self. "Ātman" in that context is being implemented as a nominal subversion to the Hindu idea of a self. The Tibetan translation even goes as far as to state that all ātmans are merely conventional. Mere nominal designations, not to be considered actually real.

The four parāmitās of nirvāna are an upāya that is meant to communicate the nature of nirvāna, they are:

(i) Purity; meaning free from defects.

(ii) Identity; meaning the liberation of a Buddha is precisely just that, and is not a flimsy state that can just become whatever like mind does. In some presentations this usage of "ātman" is intended to communicate that one's nature is free from the imputed dichotomy of self or lack thereof. Much like sometimes when we see "essence" used in the same way, to denote an essenceless essence, or "nature" as a natureless nature, this use of ātman is something like the selfless self, so again, just a play on words. In many of these texts the term ātman is intended to be literally synonymous with "essence."

(iii) Happiness or bliss; meaning the peace and relief that even the word Nirvāṇa (meaning to blow out, exhale, extinguish) suggests. Also signifying the absence of suffering. Sometimes "peace" is used, which represents a state free of arising and cessation.

(iv) Permanence; meaning that authentic buddhahood is not reversible, once attained the plague of ignorance is irrevokably cured.

None of these suggest that dharmakāya or nirvāna are a literal self, "true" or otherwise.

Ogyen said:
The text begins with a bow to Vajrasattva...

krodha wrote:
Yes, again many have used this gloss "eternal" but that does not mean the translation is accurate or warranted.

Ogyen said:
The scripture it quotes is as follows:
O Lord, if there would be the people who have the notion of Eternity, Unity, Bliś, and Purity [regarding the Absolute Body], they would he the legal sons of the Buddhas and be of no miscomprehension. O Lord, [verily] they would be of perfect perception. For what reason?  [Because], O Lord, the Absolute Body of the Tathāgata is verily the Supreme Eternity, the Supreme Bliś, the Supreme Unity and the Supreme Purity. O Lord, those people who perceive the Absolute Body of the Tathāgata in this way, perceive perfectly. Those who perceive perfectly are, O Lord, the legal sons of the Buddhas”
so... here, they're talking about the 4 virtues of Nirvana - eternal, bliss, self and purity - (here, they translated self as unity, right?)

krodha wrote:
"Permanence" is a better gloss than "eternal" in the context of the four pāramitās.

Ogyen said:
So here is where I see many people negate absolutely everything with emptiness?  Yet... what I'm reading is saying the Buddha Nature is being described as NOT empty.

krodha wrote:
"Non-empty" is a play on words in that context. Many see the use of "non-empty" and think it contradicts śūnyatā, but it does not... it is merely a play on words that is intended to come off a bit controversial and incendiary. "Non-empty" is an embellished and shortened way of saying "not lacking qualities," but it appears attractive for those who might fear emptiness, it is intended as an upāya in that sense. The main issue is that it requires unpacking and given the fact that many who shy away from emptiness tend to be those who take comfort in the idea of substantial essences, the use of "non-empty" is oft misconstrued as affirming an inherent essence that contradicts emptiness.

Ogyen said:
So here I'm getting that it's saying Theravadans/Hinayana like to contemplate the impermanence of phenomena rather than meditate on the eternity of the Buddha Nature

krodha wrote:
Again, it is better to use "permanence" than "eternity." Tathagatagarbha is sometimes described as "permanent" because it is the nature of mind as non-dual emptiness and clarity, therefore it is always the case that the mind's nature is that way. However this does not mean it is a substantial essence that is permanent and understanding this properly is vital otherwise it is easy to err into eternalist views.

The use of "permanent" in the context of the four pāramitās mentioned above is what is most important. Why is nirvana "permanent?" Nirvana is permanent because it is defined as a total cessation of cause for rebirth in the three realms. Since there is no possibility of cause for "re-arising" nirvana is said to be "permanent."

As I wrote before:

Buddhahood is irreversible and permanent. Nirvāṇa is the total exhaustion of one's ignorance regarding the nature of phenomena, and for that reason nirvāṇa is described as a cessation. What ceases is the cause for the further arising and proliferation of delusion regarding the nature of mind and phenomena, which is precisely the cessation of cause for the arising of the cyclical round of rebirth in the three realms we call "saṃsāra." For this reason, nirvāṇa is said to be "permanent," because due to the exhaustion of cause for the further proliferation of saṃsāra, saṃsāra no longer has any way to arise.

From Tsele Natsok Rangdrol:
You might ask, 'Why wouldn't confusion reoccur as before, after... [liberation has occured]?" This is because no basis [foundation] exists for its re-arising. Samantabhadra's liberation into the basis [wisdom] itself and the yogi liberated through practicing the path are both devoid of any basis [foundation] for reverting back to becoming a cause, just like a person who has recovered from a plague or the fruit of the se tree.
He then states that the se tree is a particular tree which is poisonous to touch, causing blisters and swelling. However once recovered, one is then immune.

Lopon Tenzin Namdak also explains this principle of immunity:
Anyone who follows the teachings of the Buddhas will most likely attain results and purify negative karmic causes. Then that person will be like a man who has caught smallpox in the past; he will never catch it again because he is immune. The sickness of samsara will never come back. And this is the purpose of following the teachings.
and from Malcolm:
Buddhahood is a subtractive process; it means removing, gradually, obscurations of affliction and obscurations of knowledge. Since wisdom burns these obscurations away, in the end they have no causes for returning; and further, the causes for buddhahood are permanent leading to a permanent result.

Ogyen said:
This Buddhahood is now eternal, everlasting and constant, Being endowed with all the pure properties of the Buddha, being inconceivable, eternal and ever-lasting, Being quiescent, constant, and perfectly pacified, Being all-pervading and apart from discrimination, The pure and immaculate Buddhahood is like space, It has neither attachment nor hindrance anywhere, it is ‘eternal’, as it is devoid of birth; It is ‘everlasting’ since it does not disappear; It is ‘quiescent’ because it is free from dualism, And is ‘constant’ because of endurance of Reality. now this threefold Body made manifest in order to be the support for the weal and happiness of the world, has an ‘eternal’ character [in its manifestation].

krodha wrote:
And so here we see "buddhahood" described as permanent, in so many words. The translation of buddhist texts is an ever evolving process, just because we encounter terms like "eternal" and so on, this does not mean they are truly accurate glosses and therefore it is important to be aware of the possibility that certain translations are somewhat outdated or simply reflect a limited understanding of the source material.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 24th, 2018 at 7:45 AM
Title: Re: Why is "unborn, unchanging, deathless" NOT eternal?
Content:
Sherab said:
Did the Buddha taught the avoidance of the two extremes of existence (eternalism) and non-existence (nihilism)?  Yes he did.

(Here, a proper definition of the extreme of existence (eternalism) and the extreme of non-existence (nihilism) is needed to understand the Buddha's teachings properly.)

Did the Buddha somehow forgot about his own teaching of avoiding the two extremes of existence and non-existence when he taught about the born and the unborn?  Certainly not.

So is the born not within the extremes of either existence and non-existence?  Yes it must be, if the Buddha was consistent in his teachings.

krodha wrote:
The nature or dharmatā of an allegedly born i.e., originated conditioned entity is free from extremes. But the perception of conditioned entities that have been born is intimately tied to the fundamental misconception of existence. Therefore what is born is held to be existent, and this is the binding misconception one is meant to overcome through insight.

Therefore what is perceived as born is held to be existent even though it is truly free from such extremes due to being ultimately non-arisen [unborn].

Sherab said:
Is the unborn not within the extremes of either existence and non-existence?  Yes it must be, if the Buddha was consistent in his teachings.

krodha wrote:
This is because the so-called "unborn" is nothing other than the very non-arising of what is misconstrued as being existent or "born."

Sherab said:
In brief, the born and the unborn do not fall into either the extreme of existence or the extreme of non-existence.

krodha wrote:
Ultimately this is true, however the issue is with the afflicted perception one intends to uproot, which is that entities have originated (been born) and therefore exist.

Sherab said:
Why did the Buddha talked about the born and unborn?  Because, if there is not the unborn, there can be no liberation from the born.

krodha wrote:
"Born" and "unborn" are two species of cognition in relation to a single appearance or alleged entity, the former is afflicted whereas the latter is unafflicted.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 23rd, 2018 at 3:35 AM
Title: Re: Why is "unborn, unchanging, deathless" NOT eternal?
Content:
smcj said:
Yes, the end result was that eternalism grew in East Asia like "weeds in an untended garden," as Malcolm once put it.
Due to proximity to India Tibet held out longer. It was Dolpopa that first brazenly codified and put forward the heresy—big time.

...and I am profoundly grateful to him for that.

krodha wrote:
Even today his view is considered extreme, and no real interest is given to Dolbupa's work outside of the Jonang.

Non-Jonang gzhan stong is not Dolbupa's view.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 23rd, 2018 at 3:06 AM
Title: Re: Why is "unborn, unchanging, deathless" NOT eternal?
Content:
smcj said:
In “When the Clouds Part” Brunnholzl makes the point that the scofflaws who took that view left India, where it was not accepted as Buddhism, and took their ideas to the Far East. That why it shows up earlier there than anywhere else.

krodha wrote:
Perhaps, but it is also likely East Asian views became very eternalistic due to being divorced from the climate of polemics that Tibetans dealt with as a result of their geographical proximity to India.

smcj said:
Whether by chance or by design, either way the end result became the same.

krodha wrote:
Yes, the end result was that eternalism grew in East Asia like "weeds in an untended garden," as Malcolm once put it.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 23rd, 2018 at 3:05 AM
Title: Re: Why is "unborn, unchanging, deathless" NOT eternal?
Content:
aryasunyata said:
But it still doesn't address the elephant in my living room.  If primordial awareness simply is... Then why is it "contradictory" to refer to as such when it is done in many a scriptural guide, sutras, tantras, etc... And... With many terms in many languages!!

krodha wrote:
No Buddhist teaching states that "primordial awareness" (what term that is a gloss for I'm not sure) "just is." This is never taught.

aryasunyata said:
My question isn't asking the meaning of life... My question is about Buddhists who contradict themselves and their own sources, and pretend there is no contradiction... It's incongruous to me.

krodha wrote:
You'll have to cite examples of said contradictions.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 23rd, 2018 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Why is "unborn, unchanging, deathless" NOT eternal?
Content:
krodha wrote:
If something "is", it is existent.

Jeff H said:
Hence the quotes. Awareness can't be identify and neither can it be denied; It neither exists nor does it not exist.

krodha wrote:
"Neither existing or not-existing" is the fourth extreme held to be untenable.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 23rd, 2018 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Why is "unborn, unchanging, deathless" NOT eternal?
Content:
smcj said:
In “When the Clouds Part” Brunnholzl makes the point that the scofflaws who took that view left India, where it was not accepted as Buddhism, and took their ideas to the Far East. That why it shows up earlier there than anywhere else.

krodha wrote:
Perhaps, but it is also likely East Asian views became very eternalistic due to being divorced from the climate of polemics that Tibetans dealt with as a result of their geographical proximity to India.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 23rd, 2018 at 1:27 AM
Title: Re: Why is "unborn, unchanging, deathless" NOT eternal?
Content:
smcj said:
One of the problems is here i think.
From what i know and understand we can't have a "something" that is beyond time. The rejection of an arbitrarily posited  enduring principle or essence sits at  the core of emptiness teachings.
Exactly.

But then, over time (and distance from India), the teachings on Buddha Nature evolved to become the exact thing the Prajnaparamita and Madhyamaka categorically deny.

krodha wrote:
Not really.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 23rd, 2018 at 1:27 AM
Title: Re: Why is "unborn, unchanging, deathless" NOT eternal?
Content:
Jeff H said:
Primordial awareness arises from ultimate truth: awareness simply “is”. That does not mean that it exists or does not exist; It does not mean it is timeless or timebound. You can never identify that which is aware because it is not a thing. However, neither can you deny that awareness asked the question.

krodha wrote:
If something "is", it is existent.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 23rd, 2018 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: Why is "unborn, unchanging, deathless" NOT eternal?
Content:
aryasunyata said:
Thank you for your thoughts.

I get the lack of eternal self... What I find confusing is that in my lineage, this "thing" that believes it to be an *I am* is essentially an illusion, but in the sutras for example, we find references upon references to "True Self" within the buddhist concept.  Like the shurangama sutra off the top of my head.  In several sutras the references to the "eternal" unchanging qualities of True Self arise from Budda nature.

I thought Dharma doesn't contradict itself, but of course people's interpretations do.... So this "True Self" is mentioned but also at the same time supposedly rejected by Buddhist where stated as such...

Are they distorted translations?

Is there subliminal language in the sutras too subtle for my feeble mind to grasp?

Do I speak too many languages and fail to integrate basic English in the translations I read?

Is there some secret sauce all Buddhist academics know of that we auto-didacts need to be let in on?

What's the deal?

I have friends from all traditions and some seem to get genuinely really upset and feel wrong Dharma is being taught because it goes against what they have clearly learned...

Does Buddhas outright contradict each other, or is it people... Or what gives??

Also.. if it's not a thing... It can be eternal then? Like the unborn undying deathless quality of the original mind?

krodha wrote:
Yes, they are distorted translations, the term "true self" [satyātman] does not actually appear in any Indian text.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 22nd, 2018 at 11:39 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in This Life
Content:
krodha wrote:
Who else is planning to go to Santa Fe? I am.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 22nd, 2018 at 11:01 AM
Title: Re: Weed is now legal in California
Content:
krodha wrote:
https://flipboard.com/article/congress-protects-medical-marijuana-from-jeff-sessions-in-new-federal-spending-b/f-39394db438%2Fforbes.com

In ya face, Jeff.

Hopefully same protection will extend to adult use.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 17th, 2018 at 8:09 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Sherab said:
Then when the Buddha said in the Samdhinirmocana that

"the ultimate is realized individually by the Aryas"
"the ultimate belongs to the signless realm"
"the ultimate is inexpressible"
"the ultimate is devoid of conventions."

he was in fact saying that the ultimate is non-existent?  If so, why don't he just say so?  Either that, or non-existent is not a proper attribute of the ultimate and it is the interpretations of what is meant by "freedom from extremes" and what is meant by "gnas lug med pa" that should be relooked.

krodha wrote:
The Saṃdhinirmocana also says the ultimate is without essence, is not a real thing and does not exist.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 14th, 2018 at 7:32 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Sherab said:
My analysis led me to the position that everything can be ascertained in the ultimate, except that what is ascertained is indescribable.  See the difference?

krodha wrote:
Why continually lean on the concept of "ineffability?"


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 14th, 2018 at 7:05 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Sherab said:
Then you have missed what I wrote here : https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p... 40#p438687
My reasoning for maintaining that there is a difference between the relative and the ultimate is simply this. If the ultimate is truly indescribable, then you cannot say that it is truly non-existent. If it is truly non-existent, then the word "non-existent" would be an accurate and exact description.

Wayfarer said:
'It'?

As per the quote I provided from the Aspiration Prayer: not existent, not non-existent. Neither is, nor is not. Accordingly there is no 'ultimate' that does (or doesn't) exist. And the apophaticism required is realising the futility of trying to pin that realisation down to 'is' or 'is not' statements. As Master Seung Sahn used to always say: 'only don't know'.

(Tricky, I know.)

Sherab said:
Agree.  As I said, my position was that the ultimate is indescribable.  So words that reference the relative, the conventional, really cannot describe it as all designations in the relative/conventional cannot escape the dualistic underpinning of the relative/conventional.  The best that can be said is that there is, or there ultimate is just is.

krodha wrote:
The ineffability of ultimate truth is no different than the ineffability of anything and everything else. And that being the case, there is no reason to opt out of discussing ultimate truth as all it requires is the employment of a correct description.

In declaring ultimate truth off limits because it is ineffable, you are exercising a decision that is no more profound than refraining to describe the taste of sugar because the experiential taste is ineffable. Yet for the rest of us, who have no problem with communicating, describing that taste as "sweet" is perfectly okay. Likewise describing said taste as "salty" would be inaccurate.

In this discussion Malcolm is essentially critiquing your insistence on describing the taste of sugar as "salty", and you are saying this critique has no basis because the experiential taste is ineffable.

This is (i) nonsensical, and (ii) a cop out.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, March 12th, 2018 at 8:07 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Sherab said:
The example of how a chariot is examined actually show what a conventional truth is, namely a designation made on the appearance of an object without examining what underlies the appearance.

Coëmgenu said:
If I might offer my own interpretation, I would agree with the above-quoted material, but I would also say, adding, that based on my reading of that simile, a conventional truth is namely a designation made on the appearance of an object even after having examined what underlies the 'surface' appearance. But perhaps this is too ambiguous in ways I don't foresee.

krodha wrote:
Really there is no need to examine what lies beneath an appearance. Any appearance will do. For example, Sherab's position that there is merit in breaking an alleged object down into constituent particles like cells and atoms etc., is actually just further extrapolation that serves to breathe life into the fundamental perception of an entity that we are attempting to overturn in the first place.

It is better to work with direct cognition. No need to get microscopic, that just fortifies perception of svabhāva.

Microscopic break downs may have been novel long ago, but this day in age everyone learns that things are composed of smaller things, and this view is now an integral aspect of science and trends in scientific materialism which champion physicalism, realism etc. For someone who suffers from materialist inclinations it is no longer a viable method in my opinion.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 11th, 2018 at 4:49 PM
Title: Re: Nāgārjuna's Fourfold Negation & Śrāvakayāna
Content:
pael said:
My friend (He is God-believer) didn't like Fourfold Negation. He did say it is "empty rhetoric"
. Help?
I did say that Nagarjuna says: things are not-A, not-B, not-AB, neither not-A-not-B
.

krodha wrote:
Someone who believes in God is committed to believing in the existence of said god, and therefore upholds a view that aligns with the first extreme.

Really their opinion of the fourfold freedom from extremes ala Mahāyāna is worthless.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 11th, 2018 at 5:29 AM
Title: Re: Nāgārjuna's Fourfold Negation & Śrāvakayāna
Content:
krodha wrote:
In SN 12.15, Śākyamuni states:

"Everything exists": That is one extreme. "Everything doesn't exist": That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle.

The fourfold catuṣkoṭi tetralemma in Mahāyāna is really just an extension of the above. Thankfully where the Śravāka suttas tend to be implicit and indirect, the Mahāyāna sūtras and śāstras are generally explicit and direct, elaborating on some of these vague statements in the suttas.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 10th, 2018 at 7:33 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:


krodha wrote:
To completely exhaust all possible landing points, Candrakīrti demonstrates:

(i) There is no chariot which is other than its parts

(ii) There is no chariot which is the same as its parts

(iii) There is no chariot which possesses its parts

(iv) There is no chariot which depends on its parts

(v) There is no chariot upon which the parts depend

(vi) There is no chariot which is the collection of its parts

(vii) There is no chariot which is the shape of its parts

Sherab said:
There is no chariot other than the parts and the relation of the parts to one another.

So do the parts and the relation of the parts to one another truly exist then and is therefore the ultimate?

To answer this, you have to continue with the analysis at the level of the parts, and so on.

krodha wrote:
Or so you think.

But these teachings argue otherwise... gcig shes kun grol.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 9th, 2018 at 4:26 PM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
krodha wrote:
And Candrakīrti isn't suggesting one break down the chariot, rather he is challenging you to locate the chariot in general.

Coëmgenu said:
By having us look at the suggested chariot at the level of its constituents rather than at the level of the suggested compounded object.

Quite literally deconstructing the suggestion.

krodha wrote:
In a way, perhaps. But again, it is more geared towards challenging the assumption that there is an entity that possesses qualities and characteristics.

Like an apple, as an entity, that possesses the characteristic of being red, being round, being smooth etc., we even say "the apple is red," and so on. Which is fine on a conventional level, but becomes problematic when we misconstrue the situation and believe there is truly an entity there.

Candrakīrti is saying "show me the apple." Find the core entity.

The authentic failure to find the entity in question is the act of realizing its non-arising.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 9th, 2018 at 8:01 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
krodha wrote:
Yet there are no parts or pieces to an entity that was never there in the first place. Hence why Nāgārjuna asserts that even constituent aggregates are merely inferential conventions.

And Candrakīrti isn't suggesting one break down the chariot, rather he is challenging you to locate the chariot in general.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 9th, 2018 at 7:00 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
But look at what it says: "We look at A and see that it is formed of B. At the level of B, A does not exist. We look at B, and see that it is formed of C...", ad infinitum, well-past the exhaustion of the latin alphabet.

Nothing is found here either.

Whether or not they intended it, the user Sherab presented the Chariot simile, essentially. I am not familiar with whether or not Ven Candrakīrti wrote a commentary on the Nāgasenabhikṣusūtra.

If I can some up my thoughts and the motivation for my participation here: I don't think the chariot simile is unBuddhist, and it reminds me of people who call other people names like "unAmerican" when I see people calling others unBuddhist and the likes.

krodha wrote:
That is not how the chariot example works in Candrakīrti's exposition, but perhaps that is now it is in the teaching you are referring to.

Coëmgenu said:
How does Ven Candrakīrti treat the long tradition of the chariot simile?

'Ad infinitum' is the novel element of its presentation in this thread. Nāgasena Bhikṣu is content to simply break down the chariot into constituents. He doesn't further break them down into particles etc.

krodha wrote:
Candrakīrti does not break the chariot into constituent pieces but instead demonstrates that the basis of imputation does not contain or produce a chariot at all.

In his Madhyamakāvatāra he employs the sevenfold reasoning in order to establish the lack of a fundamental, core identity (self) in phenomena. Candrakīrti argues that the identity of a given person, place, thing, etc., is merely an inferential, conventional designation that does not ultimately correlate to the appearances it is attributed to. Meaning: the alleged object that the designation infers (the existence of) cannot be found when sought due to the fact that the alleged object itself cannot bear keen analysis.

To completely exhaust all possible landing points, Candrakīrti demonstrates:

(i) There is no chariot which is other than its parts

(ii) There is no chariot which is the same as its parts

(iii) There is no chariot which possesses its parts

(iv) There is no chariot which depends on its parts

(v) There is no chariot upon which the parts depend

(vi) There is no chariot which is the collection of its parts

(vii) There is no chariot which is the shape of its parts


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 9th, 2018 at 3:37 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
How is it significantly different than when Nāgasena Bhikṣu deconstructs the chariot for Menander I principally by breaking it down into its constituents in analysis?

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the "properly" and "only" and whatnot in the above quoted material, but I wouldn't call deconstructing the atom unBuddhist.

krodha wrote:
For one, the alleged chariot and its parts are held to be equally unfindable, and the chariot is not considered to be composed of parts. At least per Candrakīrti's rendition.

Coëmgenu said:
But look at what it says: "We look at A and see that it is formed of B. At the level of B, A does not exist. We look at B, and see that it is formed of C...", ad infinitum, well-past the exhaustion of the latin alphabet.

Nothing is found here either.

Whether or not they intended it, the user Sherab presented the Chariot simile, essentially. I am not familiar with whether or not Ven Candrakīrti wrote a commentary on the Nāgasenabhikṣusūtra.

If I can some up my thoughts and the motivation for my participation here: I don't think the chariot simile is unBuddhist, and it reminds me of people who call other people names like "unAmerican" when I see people calling others unBuddhist and the likes.

krodha wrote:
That is not how the chariot example works in Candrakīrti's exposition, but perhaps that is now it is in the teaching you are referring to.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 9th, 2018 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Sherab said:
The only way an ordinary being can properly analyze the relative is this: (I wrote this previously)
In analyzing the relative, we look at the appearance and then ask what is underneath that appearance. So we look at an apple and see that it is formed from molecules. The apple therefore does not exist at the level of the molecules. The apple therefore is simply the appearance of the apple if we don't look at the underlying reality of the apple. Similarly, when we look at a molecule, we see that it is comprised of atoms. At the level of the atom, the molecule does not exist and is simply an appearance. When we look at an atom, we see that it comprises other particles such as quarks and electrons.....

Do you agree or do you think there is a better approach?

SonamTashi said:
At this point, your argument has completely left the confines of Buddhism (and entered the framework of materialism and a very materialistic view of science);

Coëmgenu said:
How is it significantly different than when Nāgasena Bhikṣu deconstructs the chariot for Menander I principally by breaking it down into its constituents in analysis?

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the "properly" and "only" and whatnot in the above quoted material, but I wouldn't call deconstructing the atom unBuddhist.

krodha wrote:
For one, the alleged chariot and its parts are held to be equally unfindable, and the chariot is not considered to be composed of parts. At least per Candrakīrti's rendition.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 8th, 2018 at 12:05 PM
Title: Re: Is Mind Fundamental?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Like Malcolm mentioned, there are two models. The latter model is indeed that there is no substantial external world, and that the appearances that are misconstrued for an external condition are generated by the minds of sentient beings with like karmic constitutions.

This means everything you experience is an appearance of mind, and there is no actual artifact-like world that lies beyond said appearances.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 8th, 2018 at 11:51 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Sherab said:
Do you agree or do you think there is a better approach?

krodha wrote:
You really are a materialist.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 4th, 2018 at 8:06 AM
Title: Re: Is Mind Fundamental?
Content:
Grigoris said:
Nope.  I believe that we are just as much a part of this environment as other phenomena (we are just a phenomenon anyway, we differ in that we possess sentience too:  form AND mind).

Malcolm said:
I think what he is asking you is of you think the universe exists independently of minds.

Grigoris said:
I think that the universe exists independently of our perception of it.  It's not like Antractica vanishes just because I am unaware of it.

krodha wrote:
Antarctica can be generated by mind without vanishing when it isn't cognized. This is the entire import behind the Yogācāra principle of a container universe, which is also implemented in Vajrayāna.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 4th, 2018 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: Is Mind Fundamental?
Content:
Matt J said:
Without sentient beings, there would be no color, sound, touch, taste or smell.

Grigoris said:
I disagree.  I believe that mind is mainly involved in labeling phenomena when it comes to sensation.  Not creating.  It is involved in creating insofar as it is involved in conceptualising the reorganisation of existing forms/phenomena into different combinations.  But it is not involved in creation like the Abrahamic God is in the Book of Genesis.

So I believe light exists, but mind gives it's wavelengths names like "red" or "yellow".  And even if beings were not present, there would be this thing that we call "light".

Of course your philosophising is pretty pointless though, because sentient beings have always existed.

krodha wrote:
Your position is that phenomena are established an an external environment and that we as sentient beings merely inhabit and encounter this pre-existing environment?


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 2nd, 2018 at 11:21 AM
Title: Re: A Dangerous Fallacy.
Content:



SunWuKong said:
really? where's the proof of that?

krodha wrote:
The only way to prove it to oneself is to awaken and recognize it.

SunWuKong said:
That's the cart before the horse. The only way to prove you are awakened is to show it.

krodha wrote:
If I said chocolate is sweet, and you inquired as to what the proof of that sweetness is, I would likewise urge you to taste it for yourself, directly and experientially, then no further proof is needed. You would then know it first hand and even if someone tried to prove otherwise, your confidence would be unassailable.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 2nd, 2018 at 10:27 AM
Title: Re: A Dangerous Fallacy.
Content:


krodha wrote:
At the end of the day mind is fundamental, and matter is a byproduct of incorrectly cognizing mind's own display...

SunWuKong said:
really? where's the proof of that?

krodha wrote:
The only way to prove it to oneself is to awaken and recognize it.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 1st, 2018 at 2:58 AM
Title: Re: A Dangerous Fallacy.
Content:
Simon E. said:
I would not have mentioned it at all if I had not seen such sentiments in the mouths of purported Vajrayana students.

krodha wrote:
Vajrayāna does refer to false-aspectarian Yogācāra view for its position on how appearances manifest and are mistakenly apprehended as substantial entities. Hence consciousness in some modality of itself is fundamental.

Solipsism does not work because (i) mind is subject to the same scrutiny as everything else, and (ii) the buddhadharma allows for the conventional diversity of mindstreams.

At the end of the day mind is fundamental, and matter is a byproduct of incorrectly cognizing mind's own display... so while solipsism is an incorrect view, it is only incorrect for specific reasons.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, February 17th, 2018 at 4:35 AM
Title: Re: Kyab Rig
Content:
mirrormind said:
This is very helpful. I always felt there was some contradiction or a missing explanation with regard to the sequence of matter, light, yeshe, and I had in fact meant to ask this question for a long time.

Would it be possible to say a bit more about the two types of pristine consciousness and how they are understood to be different? I have heard essence, nature, and compassion used as descriptors or qualities of the basis but not as pristine consciousnesses. Could one speak of a pristine consciousness of kadag and lhundrub respectively?

krodha wrote:
You've probably heard of them referred to as the "three wisdoms" of the basis. Three ye shes [jñāna]. "Pristine consciousness" is just an alternate gloss.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 16th, 2018 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: Do You Have A Body?
Content:
Simon E. said:
An appearance is embodied?

krodha wrote:
The body is ultimately mere appearance, but appears substantial to afflicted sentient beings.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, February 14th, 2018 at 3:20 PM
Title: Re: Dog thread
Content:
krodha wrote:
I don't like dogs. Ha


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 9th, 2018 at 11:29 AM
Title: Re: Goodbye
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Excerpt from a peterson speech:
And I'm tellin ya BUCKO you don't want to go there, it's a really dark place. And once you get there it's hard to get out. Solzhenitsyn talks about this, and I've read Solzhenitsyn. It's DARK STUFF BUCKO. Never mind that the CIA wrote it, it's DARK STUFF. And you don't want to go there. But I've read Solzhenitsyn, and it's not really obvious, it's really complex stuff. And DARK. And Solzhenitsyn is one of the deepest writers of the 20th century. He knew the darkness BUCKO, and. you. don't. want. to. go. there. He was a hero because he spoke the truth. It's hard to come back from that place, but he did. He cleaned his room and got the BUCKOS out of his country. And the other thing that's so interesting is that lobsters knew all this stuff. They cleaned their rooms 20 million years ago. And if you don't clean your room BUCKO it's a DARK PLACE, and trust me, you don't want to go there. I've been there, and trust me, you got to sort yourself out. And that's by no means obvious.

The clean room is the foil of God. Clean your room, bring him out of that DARK PLACE man, and that's your father saved. Got it BUCKO? You get to be top lobster, and that's by no means obvious. It's an archetype, I've read my Jung. It's a DARK PLACE man, I've read him. He went into that DARK PLACE and saved the lobster. And that's because he took the time to pet the cat BUCKO. And trust me, you don't want to go there. It's tyrannical, you don't want to go there. And it's by no means obvious. It's pathological. Trust me, I know BUCKO. I spent 30 years studying the Jungian archetype in the Concentration Camps. It's a DARK PLACE, you don't want to go down that road. And that's by no means obvious. And NEETCHA too, he was in a DARK PLACE BUCKO. It's mind-bogglingly brilliant stuff. And by no means obvious BUCKO.

krodha wrote:
What is this from? I listened to Peterson's interview on the Joe Rogan podcast just last week and he sounded nothing like this.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 7:17 AM
Title: Re: What Does It Actually Mean to Practice Dzogchen?
Content:
Dawai Gocha said:
Krodha, from my perspective you were trying to correct a Theravada practitioner about the true nature of reality.

krodha wrote:
Just offering other perspectives in a setting where the Theravada position is highly promulgated and said views tend to err into substantialism.

The Theravadins on Reddit are good at reciting and parroting what they've read in the suttas, but have no knowledge of Mahāyāna tenets. Some even harbor the classic Theravada fundamentalism that rejects the legitimacy of other Buddhist systems due to their narrow definition of buddhavacana. I'm never attempting to correct anyone, but if a topic is not Theravada specific and it seems worthwhile to share a different perspective I will.

Dawai Gocha said:
Then assumed I know these things because I practice dzogchen. My point was simple—just because I practice dzogchen doesn’t mean I have any special knowledge or realization. This seemed to be the antithesis of your belief.

krodha wrote:
The core tenets of the system are quite specific, however.

Dawai Gocha said:
I know these things have secret meanings and more profound context but this relates to more conventional usuage of terms. You guys didn’t comment on the dictionary definitions and Namkhai Norbu’s apparent usage, but I think it could offer clarity for others.

krodha wrote:
Ok. The use of the word is not my interest, to be completely honest. I was exploring the meaning that the term may represent in the context discussed in this particular thread... but like I said, you can obviously use the term however you like.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 3:19 AM
Title: Re: What Does It Actually Mean to Practice Dzogchen?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Again, Kyle, this is too narrow. But I am not going to discuss it here other than to say one does not need to be an ārya to be said to know Dzogchen directly and experientially. You are mixing up sūtra and Dzogchen here.

krodha wrote:
I was attempting to offer an example of another distinction that is somewhat similar in nature.

In any case seems this conversation has probably ran its course.

The distinction isn't important anyway but Dawai Gocha's blatant refusal to even consider its merits is a bit strange to me.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 2:40 AM
Title: Re: What Does It Actually Mean to Practice Dzogchen?
Content:



krodha wrote:
And the "Dzogchenpa" distinction allows both of us to maintain our points of view in a rather harmonious way.

Dawai Gocha said:
Maybe check out my second post that wasn't approved until later, it might be worth entertaining.

Seems 'dzogchenpa' can be used in both contexts. Both dictionaries define it as 'practitioners of dzogchen' and teachers have used it in this way.

krodha wrote:
The main point is again, that "Dzogchen" is the living and experiential dimension of equipoise. Those who have known Dzogchen are awakened individuals.

Even within the scope of the buddhadharma, there are "practitioners of the buddhadharma" and then there are those who have awakened, given the title "ārya." In the same way only those who have awakened to their nature have come to know "Dzogchen," and those who have not yet awakened cannot be said to know the meaning of "dzogchen."

Nevertheless they are practicing to create circumstances that are conducive to awakening. Those who have awakened and have lapsed back into their relative condition are also creating conducive circumstances to continually re-visit said equipoise, as that is the entire point.

Just as in the buddhadharma the distinction of an ārya is made, I feel it is appropriate to make the distinction we are discussing. The āryas of the world have tasted chocolate so to speak, they have an experiential, working knowledge of that taste. Those who have not tasted chocolate do not possess that knowledge.

This all started because I said "as an alleged atiyogin, you know X to be the case." You then asked what I meant by "alleged" and this is what I mean, as someone who has allegedly tasted chocolate, you possess an experiential knowledge of that taste. Likewise a yogin of ati, or a "Dzogchenpa" is someone who, if they aren't knowing it constantly, has at least awakened to know "Dzogchen."


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 5:30 PM
Title: Re: What Does It Actually Mean to Practice Dzogchen?
Content:
Dawai Gocha said:
Yes we can have different opinions so here's mine—you're teaching dzogchen on reddit and positing some questionable views.

krodha wrote:
I've never taught Dzogchen in my life and have no interest in doing so.

Dawai Gocha said:
Saying someone practicing according to empowerment/instruction isn't practicing dzogchen just seems like confusion. This is literally how the conversation went...

Me: I meant really, it doesn't make sense. You're implying that someone practicing togyal and trekchod in an authentic dzogchen lineage, isn't practice dzogchen.

You: How do you know what they are doing? One can claim to be practicing tregcho yet merely be sitting, distracted, in something that merely resembles samatha. etc etc

krodha wrote:
Right, and I still stand by the question as it is completely reasonable.

Dawai Gocha said:
The 'dzogchenpa' distinction didn't come up until later and I think a bunch of people weren't sure about that one. I'm still not sure because we have Gelugpa, Nyingmapa, etc., so what would somebody from Dzogchen Monastery be called for example? Seems like it can have multiple contexts.

krodha wrote:
Obviously.

And the "Dzogchenpa" distinction allows both of us to maintain our points of view in a rather harmonious way.

Dawai Gocha said:
I don't think any conventional use will take away from the sanctity of its true meaning either way.

krodha wrote:
I never suggested it does.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 3:30 PM
Title: Re: What Does It Actually Mean to Practice Dzogchen?
Content:
Dawai Gocha said:
Actually, I use the term generally and don't believe I'm in a position to "delegate" it.

krodha wrote:
You assign it the meaning you feel is appropriate, just as I do.

Dawai Gocha said:
This was your main premise, that because the people at our retreats might lack recognition (according to you), they aren't practicing dzogchen.

krodha wrote:
Right, and in this thread it was pointed out that "practicing Dzogchen" does not necessitate a knowledge of the basis, whereas being a "Dzogchenpa" does.

The definitive view of Dzogchen is found within the basis, path and result. Prior to that point one is implementing methods to recognize that nature. Dzogchen is your nature.

Dawai Gocha said:
So you go ahead and keep dozogchen for yourself brother, I'm ok with just being a practitioner.

krodha wrote:
We see things differently, and that isn't a problem. Are we not allowed different opinions on this matter? I'm merely sharing my view, not attempting to persuade you to adopt it.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 12:47 PM
Title: Re: What Does It Actually Mean to Practice Dzogchen?
Content:
Dawai Gocha said:
So far, I haven't seen a case made for why it matters.

krodha wrote:
It doesn't matter, ultimately.

I personally view a "Dzogchenpa" as someone who has come to know something quite specific about the nature of their own mind and phenomena.

The notion isn't something I attribute or delegate loosely. You choose to think of it more loosely. To each their own.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 12:38 PM
Title: Re: What Does It Actually Mean to Practice Dzogchen?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yup, but let’s be sure not to turn that nature into an object too.

krodha wrote:
I try to remain mindful of that.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 11:29 AM
Title: Re: What Does It Actually Mean to Practice Dzogchen?
Content:
Dawai Gocha said:
Just don't see the point in establishing this rigid intellectual trapping of the word. They have Theravadins, Mahayanists, Tantrikas, etc., but those in dzogchen lineages can't be called dzogchenpas? Doesn't seem to make sense.

We have tulkus in our lineage and even at a few years old, I don't have a problem calling them dzogchenpas.

krodha wrote:
The point being made is that there are (i) those who actually possess a knowledge of their nature and (ii) those who don't.

Those who possess that knowledge [rig pa] have come to directly know the meaning of "Dzogchen." The same cannot be said for those who haven't.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 10:23 AM
Title: Re: What Does It Actually Mean to Practice Dzogchen?
Content:
krodha wrote:
That you or your family are not practicing Dzogchen is not an assertion I made. I merely asked what it means to be an "atiyogin."

I feel Malcolm's distinction between a "Dzogchen practitioner" and a "Dzogchenpa" answers the question in a way that satisfies both sides of the inquiry.


Dawai Gocha said:
You asserted that by my standards anyone practicing samatha is practicing dzogchen, even after I described empowerments, instructions, etc. as part of the practice.

krodha wrote:
Sure, so then by the aforementioned criteria, someone practicing śamatha after having received empowerments, instructions etc., would then be a practitioner of Dzogchen, but not necessarily a Dzogchenpa. It was the "Dzogchenpa" aspect I was referring to before.

Dawai Gocha said:
Then you made other assertions like "I wouldn't call someone a mechanic...etc." Which doesn't make sense, you're comparing someone who's gotten countless dzogchen empowerments, instructions, etc. to someone who has never touched a car engine.

krodha wrote:
Then I am saying someone who has not recognized the nature of their mind is not a "Dzogchenpa," however they can be called a practitioner of Dzogchen.

Dawai Gocha said:
Getting instructions from an authentic guru is indeed touching the car engine.

krodha wrote:
In the way I was using the example, someone who has a direct, experiential knowledge of the nature of their mind, has "touched the car engine."

Dawai Gocha said:
In regards to the distinction Lopon made, i would ask again - would we not consider a tulku in a dzogchen lineage to be a dzogchenpa?

krodha wrote:
Depends on the tulku. Like I mentioned, some are legitimate, some are mere symptoms of a political climate.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 7:59 AM
Title: Re: What Does It Actually Mean to Practice Dzogchen?
Content:
Dawai Gocha said:
Krodha, I wasn't so offended but for me, saying I practice dzogchen isn't a big deal considering that's all I've been around since I was a kid. Then you're essentially saying that me and my family are not practicing dzogchen (multiple times) so I was really just pointing out the ridiculousness of that statement. I do apologize if my words seemed harsh but the exclusivity bugs me sometimes.

krodha wrote:
That you or your family are not practicing Dzogchen is not an assertion I made. I merely asked what it means to be an "atiyogin."

I feel Malcolm's distinction between a "Dzogchen practitioner" and a "Dzogchenpa" answers the question in a way that satisfies both sides of the inquiry.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 7:25 AM
Title: Re: What Does It Actually Mean to Practice Dzogchen?
Content:
MiphamFan said:
The guy you are arguing with does have a point; you don't know yourself for sure if someone really is resting in their nature of mind, in fact you can't even know unless you have some siddhis. But in the end, does it really matter to you? That's between the guru and student.

krodha wrote:
This was my point though, how does one know? There's really no way.

In any case this was more of an open inquiry, but this person became quite offended so things spun out a bit.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 7:17 AM
Title: Re: What Does It Actually Mean to Practice Dzogchen?
Content:
krodha wrote:
The first instance of recognizing said nature is the point that "practicing Dzogchen" begins, at least in my understanding.


Malcolm said:
This is when you become a Dzogchenpa, not just a Dzogchen practitioner.

krodha wrote:
Makes sense.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 7:15 AM
Title: Re: What Does It Actually Mean to Practice Dzogchen?
Content:
Malcolm said:
This is too narrow a definition. If you are practicing practices characteristic of Dzogchen, etc., then you are a Dzogchen practitioner.

For example, if you are solely a practitioner of Lamdre, you are not a Dzogchen practitioner. On the other hand, there is no difference in meaning between Dzogchen trekcho, Kagyu Mahamudra, the view of the inseparability of samsara and nirvana, etc.

krodha wrote:
Ok. I suppose I've been under the impression that the basis, path and result are defined by Garab Dorje's three statements, and that the basis is defined as the knowledge [rig pa] of the nature of mind.

But I can understand how this makes things too narrow.

Edit: nevermind just saw your last post.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 6:49 AM
Title: Re: What Does It Actually Mean to Practice Dzogchen?
Content:
Aryjna said:
ChNNR says in 'Longchenpa's Advice from the Heart' At the beginning, we may dwell in our real potentiality or real nature for five or ten seconds in a period of twenty-four hours. Then, applying the practice more and more, we may be able to remain for some minutes, then for some hours, thus becoming Dzogchen yogins.
That would probably exclude a large percentage of the people who are practicing Dzogchen.

krodha wrote:
The first instance of recognizing said nature is the point that "practicing Dzogchen" begins, at least in my understanding.

The path [lam] consists of fluctuating between equipoise and post-equipoise, which is what Rinpoche is referring to.

Whether that excludes a large percentage I'm not sure.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 6:33 AM
Title: Re: What Does It Actually Mean to Practice Dzogchen?
Content:
krodha wrote:
My point was this: I wouldn't call someone a mechanic if they have never touched a car engine. These individuals may be practitioners engaged in sadhānas, sure. Aspirants, certainly. But yogins of ati, I personally feel that is something different.

Even if they claim to be practicing tregcho and so on, how do I know what they are doing? One can claim to be practicing tregcho yet merely be sitting, distracted, in something that merely resembles samatha. Similarly, one can claim to be practicing thogal, yet just be sitting there, completely distracted, enjoying a light show. There is no way to tell who is applying these views accurately.

That being the case, are the individuals in question practicing Dzogchen? Outwardly it may appear that way. Inwardly though, where it truly matters, I cannot say. For all I know they may be just like someone dressed up in a police officer costume, outwardly appearing as such, yet in actuality not so.

In any case, for asking this question I've now been labeled: arrogant, pedantic, lost, a teapot filled with poison, a mess, and was told: Knowing your real name I'll also encourage others to stay clear.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 6:32 AM
Title: What Does It Actually Mean to Practice Dzogchen?
Content:
krodha wrote:
I am interested to hear what the general consensus is on this, as this topic has come up recently on another forum where someone stated "My opinion is that if you're practicing dzogchen, you're a dzogchen practitioner," to which I inquired what it actually means to practice Dzogchen?

This individual was raised into a Dzogchen lineage (which is wonderful) has received "the empowerments, instructions, etc and are doing those practices according to a dzogchen masters guidance," and that is all well and good, but still I'm curious, does that make one a "Dzogchenpa?"

To this proposition they retorted "I wonder if you would come to our retreat and tell people they aren’t dzogchenpas because they don’t fit a certain criteria," which I certainly would never do, who am I to judge? The question I'm proposing is just an honest line of inquiry. If people want to call themselves "dzogchenpas" they are welcome to, yet for the sake of the discussion I am still interested what that title really means?


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, February 1st, 2018 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: Wiccan arts and the Mahayana
Content:
MatthewAngby said:
Main reason why I love Wiccan arts is because of their dancing naked in the moonlight and because they are so dark and look so scary ( which I love ).

krodha wrote:
Vajrayāna ganacakras used to feature such activities as well.

MatthewAngby said:
Do they still do?

krodha wrote:
Perhaps somewhere in the world.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 31st, 2018 at 5:45 PM
Title: Re: Wiccan arts and the Mahayana
Content:
MatthewAngby said:
Main reason why I love Wiccan arts is because of their dancing naked in the moonlight and because they are so dark and look so scary ( which I love ).

krodha wrote:
Vajrayāna ganacakras used to feature such activities as well.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, January 27th, 2018 at 5:26 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
krodha wrote:
Tibetans negate the continuity of a self but still uphold a causal process of transmigration that is dependent upon the degree of karmic imprints in the mindstream.

Thus if you die a regular sentient being without having made a sufficient impression on your continuum then there is reason to be concerned to a certain extent.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 23rd, 2018 at 11:03 AM
Title: Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.
Content:
practitioner said:
I've been reading this thread wondering when he would come up.  I'm curious if he now gets the same benefit of the doubt as the Aro folks?

krodha wrote:
Jax actively demeans his teachers and essentially lies about the extent of his personal and experiential knowledge of the teachings.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 23rd, 2018 at 11:01 AM
Title: Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Some of Jax's stuff I see on FB from time to time seems pretty well spoken to me.

krodha wrote:
Used car salesmen are also known for being well spoken.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 22nd, 2018 at 6:16 AM
Title: Re: Question about removing christian/etc. baptism
Content:
javier.espinoza.t said:
Btw guys, is not the name "baptism" my business on this, but the bound made to this deva...

krodha wrote:
Even the presumption that the religion in question is connected to some sort of deva is lending a bit too much credibility in their direction, in my opinion.

I was baptized as a child and attended Sunday school before a series of instances such as the church giving my younger brother wine at communion causing him to barf all over the sanctuary area and then trying to take away his most loved and favorite teddy bear in order to donate it because "Jesus died for our sins." Unreal. My mother decided enough was enough and we never went back.

I couldn't give a shit if I was baptized or not, you really shouldn't either. It means less than nothing. My son is being raised without religion, and can decide when he's older if he wants to follow one. Hopefully he has the karma for the buddhadharma, we discuss it here and there but I don't push it on him and refuse to condition him.

Baptism is a meaningless representation of allegiance to a false system of belief.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 22nd, 2018 at 4:57 AM
Title: Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.
Content:
krodha wrote:
I attended an Aro puja in Alameda (not too far from Pema Osel Ling) maybe 8 years ago before the local sangha disbanded, wasn't my cup of tea but nice people. The practice was done primarily in English which is unique.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 17th, 2018 at 5:43 AM
Title: Re: Instant Presence and Physical Pain
Content:
Jyoti said:
Everyone one has a choice in their lives, some choose to follow a guru, some follow a career, some practice in solidary, some devote to study of sutra and develop their own thesis, some a mixture of this and that, I myself am a mixture of career and study. Direct introduction is important, but it is not a ritual where you have to receive repeatedly, although it is not restricted from doing so. I confessed I already know the teaching, including the meaning of thusness (presence) on reading books alone, but I took the direct introduction nonetheless.

I did not come here to learn anything, I am just a buddhist scholar who is feeling bore, because no one can discuss the definitive dharma with me. Now it seems clear to me that this dzogchen forum does not have the people I am looking for, my expectation is too high I guess, I will moved on as I did 6 six years ago, due to not finding the capable opponents.

krodha wrote:
Has it ever occurred to you that you may not know nearly as much as you think you do?

Sorry to be blunt but your view is a mess, and you would benefit from a qualified teacher and listening to what others have to say in this forum.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 15th, 2018 at 3:57 PM
Title: Re: Instant Presence and Physical Pain
Content:
Jyoti said:
That's right, only apply to the scriptures concern where just seeing those words, we can establish with certainty whether the scriptures are definitive. Other sources we have to verify by the meaning being communicated and not just the words.

krodha wrote:
This is quite damning for your so-called "third turning."


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 15th, 2018 at 3:55 PM
Title: Re: Instant Presence and Physical Pain
Content:
krodha wrote:
Also, the vast majority of "third turning" sūtras require a great deal of interpretation. Their expositions are certainly not direct and explicit in meaning. Rather they are indirect and implicit, requiring interpretation. Which often why we see the literal minded err into substantialism and eternalism when reading "third turning" sūtras, as they lack the experience and wherewithal to unpack the rhetoric in a way that allows them to comprehend the intended meaning.

With "interpretation" as a measure for what is provisional and definitive, the so-called "second turning" again comes out on top in terms of clarity as the rhetoric is often very direct and explicit, requiring no interpretation.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 15th, 2018 at 3:34 PM
Title: Re: Instant Presence and Physical Pain
Content:
Jyoti said:
These are of the second turning which are considered definitive only with interpretation. The tripitaka is very systematic and strict on what is definitive and what is not. The above criterias are fixed (not subject to doubt) and there are more.

krodha wrote:
The "three turning" model became big in Tibet and East Asia, but the case for an authentic origin in the Indian corpus is dubious at best. Which is to say I would not take the three turnings so seriously.

For example, in terms of sūtrayāna I opt for the Āryākṣayamatinirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra which sets out criteria for a provisional teaching and a definitive teaching. If I go by that criteria then many so-called "third turning" sūtras are considered provisional. Yet those who adhere rigidly to the three turning schematic would categorize the Āryākṣayamatinirdeśa as "second turning."

The text reads:

Any sūtrānta which explains in a variety of different terms a self, a sentient being, a living being, a personality, a person, an individual, one born from a human, a human, an agent, an experiencer — teaching an owner in what is ownerless — those sutras are called "of provisional meaning". Any sūtrānta which teaches emptiness, the signless, the wishless, the unconditioned, the non-arisen, the unproduced, the insubstantial, the non-existence of self, the non-existence of sentient beings, the non-existence of living beings, the non-existence of individuals, the non-existence of an owner up to the doors of liberation, those are called "definitive meaning". This is taught in the sūtrāntas of definitive meaning but is not taught in the sūtrāntas of the provisional meaning.

Even so, the above is only applicable within the scope of sūtrayāna, which is arguably provisional in its entirety when compared to Vajrayāna.

At the end of the day I see no reason to categorize everything so strictly, if the teaching is insightful and agrees with you then that is what is important.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 15th, 2018 at 3:15 PM
Title: Re: ChNN retreats?
Content:
krodha wrote:
The dates labeled "retreat" with no additional info are most likely "to be announced" at a later time.

Most DC retreats consist of Rinpoche's teaching in the morning along with an opportunity to meet with Rinpoche afterwards, and then dancing later in the afternoon. Depending on the location there may be other events during the day or there may not. It's generally a laid back scene.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 15th, 2018 at 2:31 PM
Title: Re: Instant Presence and Physical Pain
Content:
Jyoti said:
It seems so according to logic, reason as well as common sense, but if one had read a chinese definitive scriptures before will say otherwise, only the buddha knows better what is in his scriptures and we should follow the advice that he has stated in the sutras.

krodha wrote:
Like beauty, what is definitive in the buddhadharma is in the eye of the beholder. There is no such thing as an objectively definitive text.

That said, many so-called "definitive" texts discuss sentient beings and samsara.


